Commentaire sur Les Nombres 19:25

Kap. 19. V. 1. וידבר וגו׳ (siehe zu Wajikra 11. 1 u. 13, 1). Diese Richtung des Gesetzesausspruchs an Mosche und Aharon bezeichnet die hohe Bedeutsamkeit des Gegenstandes für die theoretische Gesetzerkenntnis und die praktische Heranerziehung der Individuen zum Gesetze.

Summary: The Tiferes Shlomo discusses a particular kavanah that one may use to enthuse himself towards Torah study and mitzvot. It involves imagining that Gan Even gave a day to you, to come back and do teshuva. How would you conduct yourself during this day? Apply that feeling to fuel your personal avodah.

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.

אלעזר [YE SHALL GIVE IT TO] ELEAZAR — The command concerning it is to be carried out by the Segan (the second to the High Priest) (Sifrei Bamidbar 123:2; Yoma 42b).

AND YE SHALL GIVE HER UNTO ELEAZAR THE PRIEST. “[The proper fulfillment of] the commandment is [only when it is done] by the deputy High Priest.” This is Rashi’s language. But his intention is not to say that the obligation to perform this commandment [always] devolves upon the deputy High Priest rather than devolving upon the High Priest or any ordinary priest; but that this was a [special] temporary command in the case of the first Red Heifer that it should be done by Eleazar, who [happened to be] the deputy High Priest. In the words of the Sifre:²²Sifre, Chukath 123. “‘Scripture here teaches that the Red Heifer was to be prepared by the deputy High Priest. This is made evident [by the fact] that [although] Aaron was still living, Eleazar [who was the deputy High Priest] burnt the heifer. And ye shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar the priest.¹²Verse 3. This [first heifer] was to be prepared by Eleazar,²³This interpretation is based upon the apparently redundant othah [“her” — and you shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar]. Hence Rabbi Meir explains that it means that it was this first Red Heifer that was to be done by Eleazar, whereas all others must be done only by the High Priest. Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer the son of Yaakov, however, are of the opinion that the word othah teaches us that only this Red Heifer was to be done by the deputy High Priest, whereas in subsequent generations it may be done even by an ordinary priest. Ramban further on explains the deeper significance of this whole matter. but all other heifers [in subsequent generations] must be prepared by the High Priest.’ These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer the son of Yaakov say: ‘this one was done by Eleazar [the deputy], and all other heifers may be done either by the High Priest or an ordinary priest.’” The purport of this is to tell us that this commandment, because of its profound secret, deserved to be given to the greatest of the priests, and yet it was not given to Aaron [but to Eleazar the deputy]! Perhaps this was because of his [Aaron’s] greatness, for he was the holy one of the Eternal²⁴Psalms 106:16: and of Aaron the holy one of the Eternal. and His pious one, who effects atonement in His Sanctuary; therefore He did not want to give him a service which is performed outside [the Sanctuary]. Or perhaps [this was to be done by Eleazar] in order to crown him, and initiate him during the lifetime of his father by means of one of the commandments of the high priesthood. Or it may be [that the performance thereof was not given to Aaron] as a punishment for [his part in the incident of] the [golden] calf, as Rabbi Moshe the Preacher wrote.²⁵“Since Aaron had made the [golden] calf, therefore this service was not done by him, because the prosecuting counsel cannot become the defending counsel” (Rashi on Verse 22, quoting the explanation of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher). See above, Seder Naso, Note 146. Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, treated Aaron also as a prophet in this commandment, and he and Moses our teacher were to give it [the Red Heifer] to Eleazar, who was the greatest of the priests after Aaron, and he was the one who had been anointed with the Oil of Anointment.²⁶Exodus 30:30. See also Numbers 3:3: the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed. See further Ramban on Leviticus 10:6 (Vol. III, p. 117) where he clearly states that in a certain respect Aaron’s sons were considered like the High Priest because of their anointment during the days of the consecration. This is [therefore] a hint that in subsequent generations the Red Heifer was to be prepared by the greatest of the priests, namely the High Priest. Similarly we have been taught in a Mishnah:²⁷Parah 4:1. “If the Heifer of Purification²⁸See Rashi on Verse 9. was not slaughtered by the High Priest, it is invalid. But Rabbi Yehudah says it is valid.” And in the Gemara of Tractate Yoma [it is stated]:²⁹Yoma 42b. “And ye shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar the priest. ‘Her’ [i.e., this first Red Heifer] you shall give to Eleazar [the deputy High Priest], but in subsequent generations it is not to be given to Eleazar. Some Rabbis say that in subsequent generations it is to be given to an ordinary priest, and some say that in subsequent generations it is to be given [only] to the High Priest.” This [latter statement] is the opinion of the anonymous Mishnah [quoted above, namely that if the Red Heifer was not slaughtered by the High Priest it is invalid], and it is the correct opinion. According to the Sages who are of the opinion that during later generations it may be prepared [even] by an ordinary priest, [the reason why here] Eleazar was commanded to do it is because there was no [ordinary] priest, for it would not be fitting that his younger brother [Ithamar] should take precedence over him [and at that time there were only three priests — Aaron, and his two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar].

ונתתם אתה אל אלעזר הכהן, "and you are to hand it over to Eleazar the priest, etc." The restrictive word אתה, "it" is necessary in view of a ruling in Yuma 42 that we have a tradition according to which subsequent red heifers could be handled either by the High Priest or by an ordinary priest, whereas in this instance it had to be handled by the High Priest.

ונתתם אותה אל אלעזר, “you are to hand it over to Eleazar, etc.” Rashi claims that the reason why this heifer was handed over to Eleazar, was to indicate that the task of slaughtering the red heifer would primarily be performed by the High Priest’s deputy. Nachmanides writes that this does not mean that ideally this commandment was to be performed by the High Priest’s deputy rather than that it be performed by the High Priest personally, or even by any ordinary priest, for we have a disagreement of Tannaim about this as described in the commentary of Sifrey. One school of thought holds that in the future it would always be carried out by the High Priest personally; this school argued that in this instance the reason why it was performed by Eleazar was that there was an emergency so that the Torah designated the deputy High Priest Eleazar instead of Aaron. According to this latter opinion we must conclude that the deeper meaning of this commandment was such that it was appropriate that the High Priest, who normally would also be a Torah scholar of outstanding caliber, would be entrusted with this task. [It is important to remember that according to tradition there were only 7 red heifers altogether, so that this commandment was not one that even a High Priest would normally be called upon to fulfill. Ed.] Our author speculates that Aaron [a High Priest of special qualifications. Ed.], of whom the Torah had said in Leviticus 21,12 that he was not to leave the consecrated grounds of the Temple, was not to be charged with a task that is carried out outside these grounds, such as the red heifer that was taken outside the camp before being slaughtered, etc. Alternately, this opportunity may have been the one to prepare the people for who was going to be the successor of the first High Priest, Aaron. [This is reasonable only if we assume that this paragraph was written in the fortieth year. Ed.] By assigning the task to prepare the ashes of the red heifer which would purify people who had incurred ritual impurity due to physical contact with a dead body, or even by being only in the same roofed airspace with such corpses, to Eleazar, a clear message was sent out that he would be next in line for his father’s office when the latter would leave the scene. On the other hand, it is possible that the fact that this time Aaron himself was not charged with handling the red heifer was a punishment for his part in the sin of the golden calf, which necessitated the people having to be purified. Moses had treated the golden calf itself as the first red heifer and he had sprinkled its ashes on the water with which the people had to be sprinkled. (Compare Exodus 32,19)

The mitzvah was performed by the assistant [Kohein Gadol]. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture not write “Give it to the kohein”? Therefore it must be that the commandment is that it must be done by the assistant, meaning the assistant to the Kohein Gadol, i.e., Elozor. He is referred to as “assistant” because if the Kohein Gadol became defiled, this kohein would take his place and do the service. And when Rashi explains “The commandment was performed by the assistant,” that is to say, only pertaining to this cow it is a requirement for the assistant perform it, but regarding other cows there are those of the opinion that only the Kohein Gadol may perform this service (Masches Yoma 42b) as Rashi shortly explains (v. 9). Therefore it is written, “Give it” meaning to say, “it” you give to Elozor, the assistant, but as for the others, they are to be prepared by Kohanim Gedolim.

V. 3. ונתתם וגו׳ ונתתם אתה אל אלעזר הכהן wohl die vorgenannten בני ישראל und אתה אל אלעזר — .משה; Joma 42 b ist nach einer Auffassung לדורות, in Zukunft, פרה durch כהן גדול, nach einer anderen auch durch כהן הדיוט zu vollziehen. רמב׳׳ם rezipiert die letztere (הל׳ פרה 1, 11). Gleichwohl vollzog in der Regel der כה׳׳ג den Akt (siehe Para 3, 8). Es hat der כהן dabei als solcher, somit בבגדי כהונה zu erscheinen, und במחוסר בגדים ist auch פרה wie alle Opfer (Schmot 28, 43) פסולה, und zwar ist sie wie die עבודה des כה׳׳ג am בבגדי לבן ,י׳׳כ zu vollziehen (Para 4, 1; siehe מל׳׳מ zu 12 ,1 הל׳ פרה). Ebenso erfordert מעשה פרה auch קידוש ידים ורגלים כעין עבודה, wenngleich allenfalls auch בחוץ und nicht בכלי שרת (Sebachim 20 b). Wie für den Dienst am י׳׳כ hatte auch der mit dem Vollzug der פרה zu betrauende כהן sich sieben Tage in Zurückgezogenheit, פרישה, vorzubereiten, שבעת ימים קודם שריפת הפרה היו מפרישין כהן השורף את הפרה מביתו ללשכה שעל פני הבירה צפונה מזרחה es wurde ihm zu diesem Behufe ein Zimmer im Nordosten des Tempelgebäudes zum siebentägigen Aufenthalt angewiesen; im Nordost, um ihn an den Doppelcharakter der von ihm vorzunehmenden Handlung zu erinnern. Die פרה ist חטאת (V. 9), daher בצפון, der allen קדשי קדשים zugewiesenen Seite, sie ist aber gleichwohl, außerhalb des Heiligtums, ja außerhalb der Stadt und nur in Anblick des im Osten gelegenen Eingangs zum Heiligtum vorzunehmen, daher במזרח, der Torseite, die aus dem Heiligtum hinausweist, und auf die als Eingang zum Heiligtum die V. 4 vorgeschriebenen הזיות zu richten sind (Joma 2 a; siehe zu Wajikra 8, 34).

ונתתם אותה אל אלעזר הכהן, “you (pl.) are to give it (the red heifer) to the priest Elazar. Rashi explains why this procedure was entrusted to Elazar, whereas all future red heifers were slaughtered etc., either by the High Priest or even an ordinary priest. Some commentators, explaining the plain meaning of our verse, suggest that seeing that handling the red heifer would contaminate the High Priest, so that he would be incapable of performing his duties for at least seven days, the task was entrusted to his deputy. Here, the deputy High Priest was entrusted with this task; according to Rashi, meaning that he was in overall charge of the entire ritual. He took the heifer out of the camp, slaughtered it, took some of its blood, sprinkling it in the direction of the Tabernacle, appointed a ritually pure man and deposited the ash of the heifer after it had been burnt in the vessel assigned for this. He took a little branch from a cedar tree and some hyssop, plus some red wool and cast it into the flames surrounding the red heifer.

אל מחוץ למחנה [HE SHALL BRING IT FORTH] WITHOUT THE CAMP — Outside the three camps (Yoma 68a; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 4:12).

Outside the three camps. We learn from the term “outside the camp” that is written here and compare it to the term “outside the camp” (Vayikra 13:46) that is written in the section dealing with metzora. There, perforce, it is outside the three camps, for it is written, “He shall dwell alone, [his dwelling] shall be beyond the encampment,” (Ibid.), meaning he dwells alone, that no other defiled person dwells with him. See there and in Parshas Vayikra.

חוץ לשלש מחנות :והוציא אותה אל מחוץ למחנה, nicht nur außerhalbe der מחנה שבינה und מחנה לויה, welchen das מקדש und der הר הבית entsprach, sondern auch חוץ למחנה ישראל, dessen Charakter die dem Tempel sich anschließende Stadt bis zur Mauer trug (siehe zu Kap. 5, 2 u. 3; — vergl. Wajikra 4, 11-12). Sie wurde zu dem außerhalb der Stadt im Osten liegenden Ölberg, הר המשחה, hinausgeführt (Para 3, 6). והוציא אותה לבדה: sie ist durchaus allein hinauszuführen, es darf keine andere, nach Joma 43 a überhaupt kein anderes Tier, mit ihr hinausgeführt werden, und so auch ושחט אותה, ולא אותה וחברתה , es darf nicht gleichzeitig mit ihr noch eine פרה אדומה geschächtet werden, ja, durch gleichzeitig neben ihr an einer בהמת חולין vollzogene שחיטה würde die פרה untauglich (Para 3, 7 und Chulin 32a).

והוציא אותה, “he will transport it (the red heifer) outside the camp; this verse has been abbreviated, seeing that the Torah did not tell us who was to take the red heifer outside the camp. Neither did it name who performed the other tasks, slaughtering, burning, collecting ashes, etc. ושחט אותה לפניו, “he is to slaughter it in his presence.” The reference is to Elazar’s presence. At this point, Rashi adds that a non priest, a layman, performed the slaughtering. Some versions add that Elazar was watching this procedure. Apparently Rashi’s point was to inform us that the slaughtering did not require to be performed by the deputy High Priest. (Compare Rashi in Talmud Yuma folio 45, as well as Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel). It is not unusual to describe the task performed by an ordinary priest as having been performed by a “stranger,” i.e. not a high ranking priest. [There had been only three priests at that time. Ed.] The term: זר may be understood as “layman,” not a ranking official. We find an example of this in the Talmud tractate Baba Batra, folio 110. [The subject under discussion there is a misunderstanding concerning this word having more than one possible meaning. עבודה זרה was understood as idolatry there, whereas it was supposed to mean: “unfamiliar work.” According to Rabbi Yitzchok, slaughter of the red heifer by a non priest was inadmissible.]

ושחט אתה לפניו AND ONE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT IN HIS PRESENCE — A stranger (a non-priest) slaughters it while Eleazar looks on (superintends) (Sifrei Bamidbar 123:2; Yoma 42a).

The commoner slaughters, etc. [The proof is] for it is written, “In his presence.” Scripture should have written, “And someone shall slaughter it,” why add the term, “In his presence”? Perforce someone else slaughters, and since Scripture does not specify who the slaughterer is, it implies that even a commoner may slaughter.

ושחט אתה לפניו: auch die שחיטה darf nicht durch einen Nichtkohen geschehen, שחיטת פרה בזר פסולה, und das: לפניו will zunächst sagen, dass er seinen ganzen Sinn auf die פרה und die mit derselben vorzunehmenden Handlungen gerichtet halten muss, שלא יסיח דעתו ממנה Joma 42 a). Es ist dies die einzige שחיטה, die nur durch den כהן vorgenommen werden darf. Bei allen קרבנות gehört שחיטה nicht unter den engeren Begriff der עבודה, die nur durch einen כהן zu vollziehen wäre, שחיטה כשרה שחיטה לאו עבודה ,בזר (siehe zu Wajikra 1, 5), selbst שחיטת פר כה׳׳ג בי׳׳כ ist כשרה בזר (Joma daselbst), und obgleich פרה nur zu den קדשי בדק הבית gehört, ist deren שחיטה, sowie der ganze Akt, bis sie in Asche verwandelt ist, auf כהן beschränkt. Sie wird dort in dieser Beziehung mit מראות נגעים verglichen (siehe Wajikra 13, 2). Es sind auch מעשיה ביום, alle mit ihr vorzunehmenden Handlungen nur am Tage zu vollziehen (Para 5, 4). Nach einer Lesart in ספרי dürfte jedoch שריפתה auch nachts geschehen, ähnlich שריפת אימורי חטאת בלילה. Dagegen spricht aber die Joma 42 b gegebene Entwicklung, der zufolge wie הזאת מימיה, bei welcher ausdrücklich ביום השלישי וגו׳ steht, eben so auch שחיטתה וקבלת דמה והזאת דמה ושריפתה והשלכת עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת nur ביום zu vollziehen sind, und nur אסיפת אפרה ומילוי מים וקידוש ( קידוש ist das Geben und Mischen der Asche in das Wasser) dürfen auch nachts geschehen.

Para 4, 4 heißt es: כל העוסקין בפרה מתחלה ועד סוף וכו׳ וכו׳ ופוסלין אותה במלאכה und המלאכה פוסלת בה עד שתעשה אפר, dass also von Anfang bis zu Ende, d. h. bis sie Asche geworden, keiner von allen denen, die mit der פרה beschäftigt sind, während ihrer Vollziehung eines Aktes an der פרה irgend eine andere מלאכה vornehmen dürfen und wird die פרה durch gleichzeitiges Vornehmen einer andern מלאבה untauglich. Im ספרי wird diese Halacha an den Worten des Textes also gelehrt: ושחט אותה בא הכתוב ולימד על הפרה שתהא מלאכה פוסלת בשחיטתה. ושרף את הפרה וגו׳ בא הכתוב ולימד על הפרה שתהא מלאכה פוסלת בשריפתה וכו׳ אלא בא הכתוב ולימד על הפרה שתהא מלאכה פוסלת בה משעת שחיטתה עד שתעשה אפר. Nun haben wir bereits aus Joma 42 a die Lehre zitiert, die die Sätze ושחט אותה לפניו, ושרף את הפרה לעיניו dahin erläutert, dass שלא יסיח דעתו ממנה, dass der Sinn der an der פרה Fungierenden unverwandt auf dieselbe gerichtet sein müsse und durch nichts von derselben abgezogen sein dürfe, und wird dieser פסול durch היסח הדעת (daselbst) selbst auf אסיפת אפרה und מילוי מים לקידוש ausgedehnt und diese Forderung in dem למשמרת למי נהה (V. 9) gefunden, wodurch שמירה, das unverwandte Richten der Aufmerksamkeit auf die פרה gefordert wird, bis sie als מי נדה hergestellt, d. i. bis ihre Asche in das Wasser gemischt worden, und wird (daselbst) von diesem פסול היסח הדעת nur der Akt der השלכת עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת ausgenommen, weil dieser Akt sich direkt auf andere Objekte bezieht, דלאו גופה דפרה נינהו. Es ist nicht ganz entschieden klar, ob dieser פסול היסח הדעת und der פסול מלאכה identisch oder ob sie zweierlei gesetzliche Begriffe sind. Da, wie es scheint, מלאכה אחרת nicht ohne היסח הדעת möglich ist, so scheinen beide Begriffe eins und מלאכה nur eine Dokumentierung des היסח הדעת zu sein. Was in Joma היסח הדעת beim מים heißt, wird in der Mischna Para 4, 4 מלאכה genannt und im ספרי ebenfalls aus dem Texte למשמרת usw. hergeleitet. Dagegen scheint es auffallend, dass in Joma für היסה הדעת בפרה nicht des ספרי erwähnt ist, ferner ist daselbst היסח הדעת פסול selbst bei אסיפה, und nach der תוספתא פ׳׳ג, welcher auch 17 , 5 רמב׳׳ם folgt, ist מלאכה bei אסיפה nicht פסול, und ist auch sonst, so weit wir finden, die nach Joma für den Akt der השלכת עץ ארו וכו׳ statuierte Ausnahme vom פסול היסח הדעת als Ausnahme vom פסול מלאכה nirgend ausgesprochen. Auffallender Weise wird diese Ausnahme vom רמב׳׳ם in הל׳ פרה nicht erwähnt und deren Mangel, sowie der פסול היסח הדעת bei אסיפה nach Joma daselbst von keinem Kommentator bemerkt וצ׳׳ע. (vergl. über היסח הדעת und ראב׳׳ד :מלאכה und כ׳׳מ zu הל׳ פרה VII, 3.)

Nach Gittin 53 b scheint מלאכה ohne היסח הדעת möglich und nach תוספו׳ (daselbst) היסח הדעת ,ד׳׳ה הא דאתה ohne מלאכה auch פסול zu machen. וצ׳׳ע׳׳ע im ש׳׳מ מאירי zu ב׳׳ק 56a.

אל נכח פני אהל מועד [HE SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD] TOWARDS THE FRONT SIDE OF THE APPOINTED TENT He stands at the East of Jerusalem and must direct his gaze straight towards the entrance of the Hechal at the time of sprinkling the blood (Sifrei Bamidbar 123:2; Yoma 68a).

He stands east of Jerusalem, etc. Rashi wants to answer [the following question]: Scripture writes that he must slaughter the cow outside the three camps, as previously explained (v. 3), and this verse that “Elozor [the kohein shall take] which implies that he sprinkles outside the three camps, so how can it be “directly facing the Tent of Meeting”? Rashi answers that it is not meant to be interpreted literally, that he was standing in front of the Tent of Meeting but rather he stood at a distance.

V. 4. מצותה מצות יד ולא מצות כלי :ולקח וגו׳ מדמה באצבעו, nicht in ein Gefäß, sondern in die Hand fing er Blut auf und sprengte dann davon mit dem Zeigefinger der rechten Hand in der Richtung zum Eingang des Heiligtums hin (ספרי). Das übrige Blut, das ja nach V. 5 mit verbrannt werden musste, fing er nach הל׳ פרה 3, 2ראב׳׳ד ( in ein Gefäß auf (vergl. . לוג שמן של מצורע Wajikra 14, 15). והזה על כל הזיה טבילה :והזה וגו׳ מדמה שבע פעמים, bei jeder הזיה hatte er aufs neue seinen Finger ins Blut zu tauchen und vor jeder טבילה den Finger von den Blutresten zu reinigen (Para 3, 9 und Sebachim 93 b; — vergl. Wajikra 4, 6).

Elozor the kohein. In the Sifrei the Sages derived that he must be in his kehunah; Rashi explained that this means he should be in his garments of kehunah. Rashi’s source is Zevachim 18a, in which the Gemora quotes from the verse: “The sons of Aharon the kohein” — in his kehunah: This teaches that a Kohein Gadol who wears the garments of a regular kohein and serves, the service is invalid. “The sons of Aharon the kohanim” — in their kehunah: This teaches that a regular kohein who wears the garments of a Kohein Gadol and serves, the service is invalid. This law is needed because the red heifer is not an offering, so one might have thought that the commandment of a kohein to deal with it is only like examining a person for tzora’as or the law of the decapitated calf. Therefore, the verse specifies that they must be in their kehunah garments.

ולקח אלעזר הכהן והזה, “Elazar the priest is to take from the blood and sprinkle;” at this stage it appeared as if the sprinkling of the blood was the most important part of the ritual, and required the deputy High Priest to perform it.

הזה ולא כיון כנגד הפתח פסולה ,כנגד פתח ההיכל .אל נכח פני אהל מועד (Para 4, 2). Sebachim 113 a lehrt die Halacha, dass, wie die הזיות so auch die vorangehende Handlung der שחיטה und die nachfolgende Handlung der שריפה in der Richtung des Eingangs zum Heiligtum geschehen müssen, und פרה ששחטה או שרפה שלא כנגד הפתח oder wie es in der Mischna heißt: גת .פסולה ,חוץ מגתה heißt nämlich die zum Verbrennen der פרה bereitete Vertiefung, diese "Kelter"-artige Vertiefung machte man auf dem Ölberge im Anblick der Fronte des Tempels.

ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, את ערה, "He shall burn the heifer in his sight; its skin, etc." Why does the Torah interrupt the sequence of what is to be burned by mentioning לעיניו, "in his sight?" We can understand this in light of a ruling by Maimonides in chapter 4 of Hilchot Parah Adumah that the red heifer should be burned whole, but that in the event the priest first skinned the heifer and cut it up before he burned it this was acceptable. The reason the Torah interposed the word לעיניו where it did was to alert us to this alternative way of burning the red heifer. The Torah wrote ושרף את הפרה to indicate that the entire heifer had to be burned at the same time even if it had already been cut up. The words את ערה, "with its skin," indicate that it all has to be burned together though it need not necessarily be when the heifer is still a whole cadaver.

לעיניו, in the presence of Eleazar.

V. 5. ושרף את הפרה לעיניו (siehe zu V. 3) שרפה חוץ מגתה או בשתי גתות או ששרף שתים בגת אחת פסולה (Para 4, 2). — את עורה ואת בשרה וגו׳. Sie muss vollständig mit allen ihren Teilen verbrannt werden, es ist jedoch gleichgültig, ob man sie erst enthäutet und zerlegt, und Haut und Teile zusammen, oder sie unenthäutet und unzerlegt verbrennt, הפשיטה ונתחה כשרה (Para 4, 3).

ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, “someone is to burn the red heifer in the presence of Elazar.” Elazar’s watching the procedure is equivalent to the Torah having written: “the deputy High Priest is to watch this procedure.”

על פרשה ישרף, "with its dung it shall be burned." The reason the Torah repeats the apparently superfluous word ישרף, "he shall burn it," is to show that there are two ways in which this burning could take place, as I have explained. Either one burns the heifer while it is whole, or after it has been skinned and cut up. The second word ישרף refers to the second alternative. Maimonides in Hilchot Parah Adumah chapter 4 rules (based on a Tossephta in the second chapter of Parah) that if some part of the skin fell off, or even some of its hair in an amount equal in size to that of an olive, one has to put it back so it can be burned with the animal or the whole procedure becomes invalid. In other words, the second word ישרף may tell us that it is indispensable that all the parts of the heifer be burned.

את עורה, “its skin,” including the hair on the skin;

ואת בשרה, “and its flesh;” including its bones.

ואת דמה,”and its blood,” including its horns and claws.

על פרשה, “together with its entrails containing their dung.”We have a parallel to this kind of construction in Exodus12,9, where the Torah writes: ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, “its head, its legs and its entrails.”

V. 6. ולקח הכהן וגו׳ und ebenso וכבס בגדיו הכהן (V. 7). Diese wiederholten Bezeichnungen des Fungierenden als כהן lehren, dass dazu zwar ein jeder כהן, jedoch בכהונתו nur in der ihn als כהן kennzeichnenden Erscheinung,בבגדי כהונה , tauglich ist (Joma 43a).

אל תוך, “into the midst of the burning heifer.” The words אל תוך were used instead of the prefix letter ב. The Torah uses a similar construction both in Exodus 25,16, אל הארון, “into the ark,” instead of בארון, and in verse 17 in our chapter אל כלי, “into a vessel,” instead of בכלי.

עץ ארז ואזוב וגו׳ mindestens 1 חפט groß (Nidda 26a). ששנתו תולעת ולא :ושני תולעת ששנתו דבר אחר, es ist Wolle, die durch תולעת und durch nichts anderes die "andere" Farbe erhalten hat. Diese Erläuterung dürfte einiges Licht auf den Ausdruck שני werfen. שני von שנה bedeutete: Farbenveränderung, und zwar wohl eine solche, dass die neue Farbe ganz so dauernd und unveränderlich bleibt, wie die natürliche, die ursprüngliche erste. Es bedeutete somit שני eine "echte" Färbung. שלשה מינים שבפרה מעכבין זה את זה keines von diesen drei Dingen darf fehlen (Menachot 27a). כרכן בשיירי הלשון er band sie mit den Enden der שני תולעת-Wolle zusammen (Para 3, 11), es ist aber (Joma 41b) nicht entschieden, ob dies die Absicht hat שיהו כולן באגודה אחת, dass sie zusammen ein vereinigtes Objekt bilden sollen, oder כדי שיהא בהן כובד ויפלו לתוך שריפת הפרה dass sie eine gewisse Schwere erhalten und dadurch in den Brand der פרה fallen. Jedenfalls ist es nach der תוספתא nicht hinderlich, wenn sie auch einzeln nach einander in den Brand geworfen sind (2 ,3 הל׳ פרה רמב׳׳ם). es ist jedoch möglich, dass diese תוספתא eben der letzten Ansicht ist.

אל תוך שריפת הפרה: schon שריפה und noch פרה, somit nachdem bereits das Feuer den größten Teil gefasst hat, משיצת האור ברובה, bevor sie Asche geworden (ספרי).

אל המחנה [AND AFTERWARDS HE MAY COME] INTO THE CAMP — into the camp of the Shechina (in the case of the Temple at Jerusalem, into the forecourt, the עזרה, immediately in front of the Temple), from which alone he had been barred, for no unclean person was expelled from two camps (i.e. from more than one, viz., the מחנה שכינה) except a person with a running issue and a man who had experienced a seminal emission (who were expelled from the מחנה שכינה and מחנה לויה), and a leper (who had to remain outside all three) (cf. Pesachim 67a).

Except for the zav. Even one who has become defiled by a corpse is permitted into the camp of the Levites, and this is derived by an a fortiori [proof] from the fact that a corpse is permitted into the camp of the Levites. For Yoseif’s bones were with Moshe, and Moshe resided in the camp of the Levites because he was a Levy, so certainly one whose impurity resulted from the [red] cow is allowed into the camp of the Levites. If so, that which is written afterward, “And afterwards he may come into the camp” refers to the camp of the Shechinah.

V. 7. וכבס בגדיו וגו׳, der כהן המשליך des vorangehenden Verses, obgleich derselbe doch nicht direkt mit der פרה beschäftigt war, und ebenso V. 8 והשרף אתה יכבס וגו׳, der den Hauptakt an der פרה vollzog, לימד על העוסקים בפרה מתחלה ועד סוף שיהו טעונים תכבוסת ורחיצת הגוף והערב שמש; damit ist die Bestimmung gelehrt, dass alle, die von Anfang bis zu Ende, also auch der שוחט und מזה mit dem Vollzuge eines Aktes der פרה beschäftigt waren, טמאים sind und טבילה ,כבוס בגדים und הערב שמש bedürfen (ספרי und Para 4, 4), und zwar werden die עוסקים בפרה nur טמא, so lange פרה der Vollzug gesetzmäßig geschehen, sobald aber die Gesetzmäßigkeit gestört und die פסולה geworden, bringt die Beschäftigung mit derselben nicht mehr אירע בה פסול בשחיטתה. אינה מטמאה בגדים אירע בה בהזיתה כל שעוסק בה לפני פסולה מטמא בגדים לאחר פסולה אינו מטמא בגדים (daselbst). Es wird aber nur der עוסק בפרה, der mit dem Vollzuge einer in Betreff der פרה vorgeschriebenen Handlung Beschäftigte, so der שורף מזה ,שוחט und V. 10 auch der אוסף טמא, nicht aber der נוגע, der Berührende. פרה עצמה אינה מטמאה, die פרה an sich bringt keine טומאה (Para 8, 3; vergl. פרים הנשרפים. Wajikra 4, 12).

וכבס בגדיו הכהן, “and he shall wash the priests’ clothing,” (in a ritual bath,) This refers to the same person who had thrown the parts of the slaughtered red heifer into the fire.

וטמא הכהן עד הערב [AND AFTERWARDS HE SHALL COME INTO THE CAMP] AND THE PRIEST SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTO THE EVENING — Invert its order (that of the phrases forming this half of the verse), and then explain it: He shall be unclean until the evening and afterwards he shall come into the camp (cf Rashi Leviticus 11:32 and Note thereon).

Rearrange. [Rashi is answering the following] difficulty: The verse implies that after he washes his garments he may enter the camp of the Shichinah, but [this cannot be, for] he is still in a state of impurity until the evening. Is it possible for one to be permitted to enter the camp of the Shichinah when he is still in a state of impurity? He is not even allowed to eat terumah until nightfall! So certainly he is not permitted to enter the camp of the Shechinah until nightfall. Therefore the verse must be rearranged, etc.

Der עוסק בפרה wird aber ganz so טמא wie der נושא נבלה, d.h. בחיבורין, so lange er mit der פרה beschäftigt ist, ist er nicht nur מטמא בגדים שעליו, sondern überhaupt alle כלים, die er berührt, mit Ausnahme von אדם וכלי חרס, und werden diese כלים, die er während der Beschäftigung mit der פרה berührt, ראשון לטומאה wie er selbst (siehe Wajikra 11, 24-25 und Ende des Kap.); — siehe jedoch רמב׳׳ם Kommentar zu Sabim 5, 10 und תוספו׳ י׳׳ט daselbst).

וכבס בגדיו (siehe zu Wajikra 11, 25). — וכבס בגדיו הכהן וגו׳, die eigentümliche Stellung dürfte wohl sagen sollen, dass er dieser טהרה eben nur als כהן bedürfe und daher auch das folgende ואחר יבוא אל המחנה sich nur auf das eigene מחנה der כהנים, auf מחנה שכינה beziehe, das mit עזרת כהנים beginnt (siehe zu Kap. 5, 2 und 3). Zu einer solchen Präzisierung ist aber Veranlassung gegeben, da der כהן mit der פרה (V. 3) חוץ לשלש מחנות, also auch außerhalb des מחנה ישראל gewiesen war, damit aber der Vermutung Raum gegeben ist, als ob er מצורע ähnlich vor seiner טהרה selbst nicht מחנה ישראל betreten dürfte und außerhalb der Stadt zu bleiben hätte. Daher וכבס בגדיו הכהן, er bedarf dieser טהרה nur als תרומה כהן zu genießen und das מקדש zu betreten. Daher denn wohl auch die Umstellung des ואחר יבוא אל המחנה in engem Anschluss an וכבס בגדיו הכהן, obgleich es der Zeit zufolge, wie schon Raschi bemerkt, nach וטמא עד הערב gehört. Es ist damit eben das מחנה als מחנה הכהונה bezeichnet und das וטמא הכהן ער הערב ist nur selbstverständliche Ergänzung für alles zur כהונה Gehörige, also als "כהן" hört für ihn immer die טומאה nur nach Sonnenuntergang auf: טבילה vor טבול יום ,הערב שמש, bringt טהרה nur für מעשר אכילת תרומה וקדשים .שני und ביאת מקדש fordert immer הערב שמש. Für מחוסרי כפרה ist אכילת קדשים und ביאת מקדש auch noch an הבאת קרבנותיו geknüpft (siehe Wajikra 7, 19-21).

V. 8. והשרף וגו׳ (Siehe V. 7).

השורף אותה יכבס את בגדיו, “the person who had burned the red heifer is to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath;” (as well as his body). According to the plain meaning of the text, the people handling the red heifer did not have to immerse their clothing in a ritual bath prior to these activities, as at that point its purpose could not have appeared to onlookers as different from presenting other animal offerings, all of which require slaughtering of the animal in question and sprinkling its blood. The Torah described the final stages of this ritual before having completed describing the task of the man burning the red heifer, seeing this part of the ritual occurred prior to the completion of all the steps he was to perform.

והניח מחוץ למחנה AND HE SHALL LAY THEM UP WITHOUT THE CAMP — He divided it (the ashes) into three portions: one he placed on Mount Olivet, another was divided between all the priestly divisions, and the other he placed in the חיל (the space that surrounded the Temple area) (Sifrei Bamidbar 124:1; Mishnah Parah 3:11). That portion given to the priestly divisions was outside the forecourt, so that the inhabitants of the cities and anyone who required to be cleansed might take of it; as for that which was on the Mount of Olives, the High Priests purified themselves by means of it for preparing other “red cows”, whilst that which was in the space surrounding the Temple area was placed there to be kept for all times by special enactment of Scripture, as it is said, “and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel" (cf. Tosefta Parah 3 8).

[He divided it] into three parts. As we learned in the third chapter of Parah (Mishnah 11), and Tosafos explains “three parts” as does Rashi. Re”m writes: It seems to me that the division into three parts was by tradition. For although the verse first states "A ritually pure man shall gather, etc." (v. 9), it repeats and says "It shall remain [a keepsake]" for the community of Bnei Yisroel (ibid.) to let us know what shall be done with it by putting it down in a clean place. The third verse that states, "It shall be for Bnei Yisroel and for the proselyte who lives among them," etc. (v. 10) is to let us know that this law shall always be carried out according to this order.

V. 9. איש להכשיר את הזר, טהור להכשיר את האשה, והניח מי שיש בו דעת ,ואסף איש וגו׳ להניח יצאו חרש שוטה וקטן. Zum Sammeln der Asche bedarfs keines כהן, jeder erwachsene vollsinnige Mensch ist dazu befähigt. Ebenso darf dies Einsammeln auch nachts geschehen und das gleichzeitige Vornehmen einer anderen מלאכת stört nicht die Gültigkeit, אין מלאכה פוסלת בה (Para 4, 4).

ואסף איש טהור, “and a man who is ritually clean is to collect, etc.” According to the plain text I might have thought that seeing that the man who had burned the parts of the red heifer had already become ritually contaminated, that he was the one who should also now collect the ash of the red heifer. Why would another person have to do that and also become ritually contaminated in the process? The Torah therefore had to spell out that a man who had not become ritually contaminated had to perform that task.

למי נדה FOR WATERS OF נדה — i.e. for waters of sprinkling (or casting); similar are, (Lamentations 3:53) “and they cast (וידו) a stone upon me”; (Zechariah 2:4) “to cast down (לידות) the horns of the nations”, both of which are expressions denoting “casting”.

The word denotes cleansing. It does not have the usual meaning “sin-offering” because for what [sin] was it an atonement!

והניח מחוץ למחנה וגו׳, auch dieses מחוץ למחנה bezieht sich nur auf מחנה שכינה (siehe V. 7). Es wurde nichts von der Asche in die עזרה gebracht. Sie wurde in drei Teile geteilt, חולקין אותו לג׳ חלקים אחד נותן בחיל ואחד נותן בהר המשחה ואחד היה מתחלק לכל משמרות ein Teil wurde innerhalb der inneren Ringmauer, חיל, des Tempelbergs, ein Teil auf dem Ölberg deponiert, und ein Teil an alle Dienstabteilungen, משמרות, verteilt. Das im חיל Deponierte bleibt zum dauernden Gedenken, לעדת בני ישראל למשמרת bewahrt, die beiden anderen Teile kamen zum טהרה-Gebrauch (Para 3, 11; — siehe רמב׳׳ם und תוספו׳ י׳׳ט daselbst).

והניח מחוץ למחנה, “and he is to deposit it outside the camp;” according to Rashi, that for the future this means that the High Priests will undergo their purification rites on Mount Olives, as part of that ash will be stored there. Future rituals involving the red heifer will also take place there, i.e. people who had become ritually contaminated by this ritual would also undergo their purification rites there.

חטאת הוא IT IS A PURIFICATION FROM SIN — This, according to its literal meaning, is an expression denoting “purification”, but from the point of view of the Halachot to which it is to be subject Scripture terms it a חטאת, “sin-offering”, to state by so doing that it is similar to holy things — that it is prohibited for any other use (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 124:2; Menachot 51b).

In its halachic sense, etc., and thus prohibited from personal benefit. You might ask: But were they not purifying with it? The answer is that anything which was in the חיל [an area in the Beis Hamikdosh] was prohibited from personal benefit. Others explain that it is similar to the atonement brought about by the sin-offering which is also not considered a personal benefit.

במקום טהור, die Örtlichkeit, in welcher sich die אפר פרה zur Aufbewahrung befindet, muss absolut טהור sein und würde sie in einem אהל המת nicht einmal durch כלי חרס צמיד פתיל (V. 15) vor טומאה geschützt bleiben (Para 11, 1 ר׳׳ש daselbst).

נדה ,למשמרת למי נדה (siehe zu Wajikra 12, 2). So wie dort נדה einen Zustand bezeichnet, der eine vorübergehende Fernhaltung bedingt und durch einen siebentägigen Zeitablauf und טבילה sein Ende erreicht, so heißt hier auch der durch טומאת מת hervorgerufene Zustand der Fernhaltung von allem קדש, der ebenfalls durch einen Ablauf von sieben Tagen und טבילה beendigt wird: נדה, nur dass hier der טבילה noch die im folgenden vorgeschriebene הזיה mit dem מים חיים und אפר הפרה vorangehen muss, und dieses mit אפר פרה gemischte מים חיים heißt: מי נדה. Das Wesentliche der durch שמירה, hier משמרת, bezeichneten Tätigkeit ist eine ungeteilte Gedankenrichtung auf ein Objekt und lehrt daher ספרי an dem Ausspruch למשמרת למי נדה, dass ebenso wie bei פרה עד שתעשה אפר, so auch מלאכה פוסלת במים. Das Sammeln der Asche wird nicht פסול במלאכה, wie bereits bemerkt, allein wenn die Asche מי נדה werden soll, so darf bei der ganzen Prozedur bis es מי נדה geworden, d. i. bis die Asche auf das geschöpfte Wasser gestreut ist, also bei dem Schöpfen, Tragen, Eingießen des Wassers, Streuen der Asche ins Wasser, der Sinn durch keine andere מלאכה abgezogen sein, die Bestimmung heißt: משמרת bis es מי נדה geworden. Ist es einmal מי נדה geworden, selbst bei der הזיה, ist מלאכה nicht חמלאכה פוסלת עד שיטילו את :פוסלת האפר (Para 4, 4).

חטאת היא. Sie trägt den חטאת-Charakter, daher: מועלין בה, es geht bei ihr מעילה an, wie bei allen קדשים, und zwar nach תוספו Menachot 51b dieser Beziehung den Charakter von קדושת הגוף, dass selbst מועל אחר מועל bei ihr möglich ist (siehe Wajikra 5, 15). מעילה findet jedoch nur bei der פרה als פרה, nicht aber, wenn sie bereits Asche geworden, statt: בה מועלין באפרה אין מועלין. Daher ferner פרת חטאת ששחטה שלא לשמה קיבל והיזה שלא לשמה פסולה, wie חטאת (Wajikra 4, 24), daher nach einer Lesart im אין נשרפת בלילה :ספרי, nach einer anderen נשרפת בלילה wie אימורי חטאת (siehe zu V. 3). Gleichwohl אינה נפסלת בלינה, und תוספתא פ׳׳ג) נשחטה היום והוזה דמה כהלכתה ונשרפה למחר כשירה 13 ,4 רמב׳׳ם פרה).

V. 10. וכבס האוסף וגו׳ (siehe V. 7). Nur der אוסף, wer aber, nachdem sie gesammelt ist, sich mit der Verteilung der Asche, mit ihrer Aufbewahrung beschäftigt, oder sonst sie berührt, ist 4 ,5 פרה רמב׳׳ם), טהור ).

וכבס האוסף, “and he that gathers the ashes shall wash his clothes (in a ritual bath);” according to the plain meaning of the text, the person gathering in the ash is required to do this, whereas the person depositing it outside the camp is not required to do this before aJi the stages of the ritual have been concluded. Seeing that it is physically impossible to collect the ashes in such a manner that none of is blown away by the wind, and contaminates the garments of the person handling it in the process, and the ash itself is holy, and it might end up in a ritually contaminated area, the person handling it will require immersing his clothing in a ritual bath earlier, similar to what the Torah described in connection with the sin offering in Leviticus 6,20: ואשר יזה ממנו מדמה על הבגד תכבס, “and anything he sprinkles from it (by mistake) on his garment you must immerse in a ritual bath in holy location” What was written there also applies to other kinds of animals whose bodies had to be burned for one reason or another, (because their meat was not consumed in time, etc.) and therefore it is clear that the same procedure is required here, even though it has not been specifically spelled out.

Die פרה אדומה-Institution zerfällt in zwei Teile: die Herstellung der אפר הפרה und deren Anwendung zur טהרת טמא מת. Die Herstellung ist mit dem וכבס וגו׳ geschlossen, die Anwendung beginnt im folgenden Verse. Beide Teile, hier V. 10 und ebenso V. 21, schließen mit dem Ausspruch: והיתה לבני ישראל וגו׳ והיתה להם לחקת עולם, ein Ausspruch, dem wir nur noch bei der Institution des י׳׳כ (Wajikra 16, 29 und 34) begegnen und (Bamidbar 10, 8) bei der Institution der von den כהנים zu handhabenden חצוצרות. Wie daher in diesen Stellen das Prinzip der כפרה und das Prinzip der Gesetzesbasis aller Autorität und aller Heileshoffnung in Israel durch den Ausspruch והיתה לכם לחקת עולם als eine ewige Grundnorm proklamiert ward, so muss auch der Gedanke der פרה אדומה-Institution ein solches Grundprinzip des jüdischen Lebens betreffen, das eben durch den wiederholten Ausspruch והיתה וגו׳ zu ewiger Geltung seine Sanktion erhält, und es muss dieser Gedanke zugleich ein solcher sein, der zu der ausdrücklichen Bemerkung seiner auch für גרים ausnahmlosen Geltung Veranlassung gab (siehe unten).

וכבס האוסף, “why did this detail have to be written here at all? If the person who only sprinkles blood with the hyssop contaminates his clothing when any of the blood touches his garments, and he therefore has to purify it in a ritual bath, is it not logical that the same rule applies to the person collecting the ash of the red heifer, who is far more likely to have had his clothing come into touch with some of that ash?” We would have to answer that we apply the rule that penalties can not be decreed by the Torah unless they had been spelled out. Using logic is not enough for this. (Sifri). An alternate interpretation: The Torah teaches us here about the concept of tumat hesset, that though a ritually contaminated person may even involuntarily transfer such contamination by just moving objects by body movements without touching them with his hands. Although concerning other holy objects, once they have been reduced to ashes, their holiness has ceased, and the ash cannot confer impurity, in the case of the red heifer this is not so. This is in order to warn us not to come into contact with it, other than for its purpose to help a ritually contaminated person to regain purity when the procedures outlined in this chapter have been followed meticulously.

וכבס האוסף את בגדיו, “and the person who has collected this ash has to immerse his garments in a ritual bath.” If even his clothing has to undergo purification in a ritual bath, how much more so does his body have to undergo such a process! We also know this from the Torah having written: וטמא עד הערב, “he remains ritually impure until evening,” i.e. after having immersed himself in a ritual bath, (verse 19) where he is declared as ritually pure as a result of the sun having set. We find a parallel to this sequence in verse 19 where the stages are: “the ritually pure person will sprinkle water containing the ash of the red heifer on the ritually impure person, who will proceed to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath and wash with water, as a result of which he will regain his ritual purity in the evening.”

"And it shall be impure seven days" - The opinion of Abraham Ibn Ezra that this is past tense, is void. For if seven days had already passed, it could no longer say that he will sin on the third day.

הנוגע במת, הוא יתחטא בו, “whoever touches the corpse of a human being...he shall purify himself with it , etc.” The word בו refers to the mixture of the ash of the red cow and the spring-water from its respective container. This verse is the origin of the widely accepted practice that when we leave after a visit to the cemetery we wash our hands as a symbolic gesture. It is merely an allusion to the ritual (nowadays impossible to fulfill) of the purification through the red cow. At the same time the practice is also an allusion to the resurrection of the dead seeing the prophet (Ezekiel 36,5) described this resurrection in the following words: “I will sprinkle upon you pure waters and you will become pure.” The practice of plucking some blades of grass from the cemetery is also an allusion to the concept of the resurrection of the dead as the grass which wilts at night and resurrects itself in the morning is referred to by the psalmist (Psalms 72,16) “let men sprout up in towns like country grass.”

V. 11. הנגע במת וגו׳, offenbar ist hier מת von נפש אדם unterschieden. Die Leiche steht in einer Beziehung zu einer נפש אדם, stammt von ihr, gehört ihr, ist aber nicht selbst die נפש (siehe V. 13). ספרי) להביא את בן שמנה ,לכל נפש) auch von einem solchen Menschenwesen, das nie Lebensfähigkeit gehabt.

הנוגע במת, “if someone has been in physical contact with a corpse, etc.;” why does this have to be spelled out, when we have already been told that even being in an enclosed room sharing the same air space with the corpse, he has become contaminated? The answer to this question is the same as above when we stated that penalties in the Torah cannot be imposed as the result of our using our mental faculties, unless the Torah has spelled this out (Sifri).

הוא יתחטא בו HE SHALL PURIFY HIMSELF WITH IT — with this ash.

ואם לא יתחטא וגו', “if such a person does not undergo sprinkling of these waters and ashes on the third and seventh day, etc.” Nachmanides writes (in his commentary on verse 20) that the thrust of this verse is to inform us that purification is impossible without the above steps, although the person that had embarked on the purification process had already undergone immersion in a ritual bath. We know that this need for a ritual bath first is also a requirement from Leviticus 17,16 ואם לא יכבס....ונשאו עונו, “if he does not immerse himself in a ritual bath he will bear his guilt.”

With the ashes of the cow. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have stated "with it" in the feminine form, given that it refers to the cow. Therefore, he explains “with the ashes” meaning that [בו] refers to the אפר (ashes) which is a masculine noun.

V. 12. הוא יתחטא בו ביום וגו׳. Aus V. 19 ist klar, dass die הזיה am dritten und am siebten Tage zu geschehen habe und dann, nachdem die הזיה am siebten Tage geschehen, die טהרה durch טבילה und הערב שמש vollendet wird. Man wird daher notwendig das וביום השביעי hinauf zu ביום השלישי beziehen müssen, und יטהר als Folgesatz oder Zwecksatz begreifen: er hat sich damit am dritten und am siebten Tag zu entsündigen, dann kann er (durch טבילה) rein werden, oder: um dann durch טבילה rein zu werden. Es ist nämlich dieses התחטא durch הזאה eine charakteristische Besonderheit für טומאת מת. Für alle anderen, auch die siebentägigen טומאות, wie זב וזכה נדה ויולדת (mit Ausnahme von מצורע, dessen טבילה ebenfalls ein anderer הזאה-Akt vorangehen muss, (Wajikra 14, 7 u. 8) genügt טבילה nach zurückgelegtem Zeitablauf von sieben Tagen, hier aber muss הזית שלישי ושביעי vorangegangen sein, wenn die טבילה wirksam sein soll. Die vorrangige zweimalige הזאה am dritten und siebten Tage bedingt somit die Vornahme des gewöhnlichen טהרה-Aktes, der טבילה, der hier daher einfach durch יטהר und לא יטהר ausgedrückt ist. Dieses חטוי mit אפר פרה bedingt die Wirksamkeit der nachherigen טבילה, wirkt aber an sich in keiner Weise alterierend auf den טומאה-Zustand ein. Selbst nach dem wiederholt vorgenommenen הזיה-Akt ist die טומאה noch völlig unverändert. Es ist also die הזיה nicht als ein טהרה-Akt zu begreifen, wohl aber als ein solcher, der die anzustrebende טהרה von einer besonderen Seite zur Erkenntnis bringt. Er trägt daher auch einen eigenen Namen, der mit dem Charakter der פרה harmoniert. Sie ist חטאת und die mit ihr zu erzielende Wirkung heißt: התחטא, sowie der Akt selbst: חטא (V. 19). So heißt auch Wajikra 14, 51 und 52 der an dem בית המנוגע vorzunehmende הזאה-Aktחטא . Nach ר׳׳ת (Jebamot 46b תוספו׳ ד׳׳ה דאין) hätte vor jeder הזאה am dritten und siebten Tage ebenfalls eine טבילה stattgefunden, die aber nur als zur הזאה gehörig und nicht als Einwirkung auf טומאה zu begreifen wäre.

הוא יתחטא בו, “the same person shall purify himself;” with this ash. If someone were to pose the question: what is the logic behind a red heifer on the one hand being the instrument for purifying the ritually impure, while at the same time conferring ritual impurity on its handlers?We could answer as follows: we find something similar in nature, where one and the same object performs two diametrically opposite functions. Fire, i.e. heat, melts metal, whereas the same fire when used to boil eggs makes the interior of these eggs get harder as time proceeds while it is in the pot. [We have not heard anyone criticising nature for performing such contradictory functions, so why criticise the Creator for legislating something parallel? Ed.] We find a similar phenomenon in medicine. A medicine which heals a sick person, makes a healthy person sick when he swallows it. Rashi in the Talmud, tractate Pessachim on folio 42 quotes such examples with cures for diarrhea. The cure, when taken by a healthy person, brings on that very ailment. Knowing this, we have no reason to question why the Creator saw fit to introduce such a concept into His Torah legislation. Furthermore, we find in books on natural science (hinted at in the Talmud tractate Beytzah folio 43), that if one places water into a vessel made of white glass, and exposes it to sunshine it will eventually burst into fire.

Aus רש׳׳י (Kiduschin 62 a) und תוספו׳ (Joma 8 b) ergibt sich, dass, wenn die הזאה am dritten Tage versäumt worden und später geschieht, dann immer dieser, wenn gleich spätere, als der Tag der ersten הזאה insofern in der Bedeutung des dritten steht, dass die zweite הזאה nur an dem darauf folgenden fünften Tage geschehen muss, so dass immer zwischen der ersten und zweiten הזאה vier, nicht mehr und nicht weniger Tage als zwischen dem normalen dritten und siebten, liegen. 2 ,11 הל׳ פרה רמב׳׳ם hat eine andere Auffassung.

ואם לא יתחטא ביום השלשי, but if he does not purify himself on the third day, etc,” what is the reason for this clause after the Torah had already written that the ritual for purification involves sprinkling of the water containing the ash of the red heifer on him on the third and seventh day? I might have thought that if he had forgotten to undergo this procedure on the third day, he could perform it twice on the seventh day; the Torah decrees that this is not acceptable, as three days have to elapse between the first sprinkling and the second sprinkling.

במת בנפש [HE WHO TOUCHES] A DEAD BODY OF ANY PERSON — And what dead body is here intended? That of a human being (נפש האדם), the addition of בנפש האדם serving to exclude the person (body) of an animal, so intimating that uncleanness caused by it does not require sprinkling for its removal. Another explanation of בנפש is, that this term refers to a quarter of a log of blood (this being regarded as the minimum quantity necessary for maintaining life in a human being) (Chullin 72a).

HE HATH DEFILED THE SANCTUARY OF THE ETERNAL. Scripture mentioned this [punishment of] excision without explanation,⁵³I.e., without first saying here that one who is impure may not enter the Sanctuary or Tabernacle. saying, he hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Eternal,⁵⁴Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice. because He had already warned us against defiling the Sanctuary, just as He said, she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary.⁵⁵Leviticus 12:4. For since He mentioned [this prohibition] there in dealing with a lesser degree of impurity, namely, that of a woman after childbirth in the days of her purification, which is a natural event for her, it [is self-understood that it] applies equally to all impure persons. He has also mentioned the [requirement of] immersion [in a ritual pool for purposes of purification], saying, but if he wash them not [i.e., the garments which have become unclean], nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity,⁵⁶Ibid., 17:16. that is to say, he will bear his iniquity if he transgresses [the law and does] that which he is admonished not to do [i.e., if he eats holy food or enters the Sanctuary whilst he is still impure, or when he is wearing impure garments]. Therefore He stated here in respect of the impurity [conveyed] by a corpse that whosoever touches the dead⁵⁴Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice. and purifieth not himself [with the waters of purification], even though he washes his clothes and bathes himself in water, is [nonetheless] considered one who defiles the Tabernacle, just as if he had not immersed himself [in a ritual pool] at all. Thus it was only necessary to mention that the purification [by means of sprinkling the waters of purification] prevents him from becoming pure [if he did not sprinkle them upon himself, even if he washed his clothes and bathed himself in water], this being the meaning of the expression, his impurity is yet upon him,⁵⁴Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice. that is to say, even though he has immersed himself [in a ritual pool] like all other impure people, he still remains impure, because the water of sprinkling hath not been sprinkled upon him.⁵⁴Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice.
It is possible that the verse is referring to the man [mentioned above, who had become defiled by the corpse], and the meaning thereof is as follows: “whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself — ‘he who’ hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Eternal shall be cut off from Israel.” There are similar cases where the letter shin or the word asher [defining the nature of a relationship such as: who, which, that, etc.] is missing, [as in the following verses]: l’chol yavo g’vurathecha⁵⁷Psalms 71:18. [which is to be understood as: l’chol — asher — yavo g’vurathecha — Thy might to every one ‘that’ is to come]; v’chol yesh lo (and all he had) he put into his hand⁵⁸Genesis 39:4. [which is to be understood as: v’chol — asher — yesh lo — and all ‘that’ he had he put into his hand]; eth haderech yeilchu bah⁵⁹Exodus 18:20. [which is understood as: eth haderech — asher — yeilchu bah — the way ‘in which’ they must walk]. There are many such verses. And the meaning of the expression ‘ki’ he hath defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal⁶⁰Here in Verse 20. is “‘when’ he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal,” [this usage of the word ki being similar to that found in the verse]: ‘ki’ a bird’s nest chance to be before thee [which means: “‘when’ a bird’s nest chance to be before thee”],⁶¹Deuteronomy 20:6. and [it is like] its many companion-verses.
Now Scripture mentions here [the punishment of] excision twice [once in Verse 13 in connection with defiling the Tabernacle, and again in Verse 20 in connection with the Sanctuary]. In the opinion of our Rabbis⁶²Shebuoth 16b. this is in order to declare him liable for defiling the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting, and also for the Sanctuary, i.e., the Permanent House [the Temple in Jerusalem].⁶³See Vol. II, p. 335, Note 598. According to the plain meaning [of Scripture] it may be that eth mikdash Hashem [usually translated: the Sanctuary of the Eternal] refers to the holy offerings. For He had already declared that he that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto the Eternal, having his impurity upon him,⁶⁴Leviticus 7:20. is liable to excision; therefore He now declared furthermore that [in the case of impurity conveyed through a corpse] even if [the impure person] immerses himself [in a ritual pool] he is still liable [to that punishment], if he does not purify himself on the third and seventh day [with the waters of purification, before he eats of the holy offerings]. The meaning, then, of mikdash Hashem [literally: the “Sanctuary” of the Eternal] will be [as if it said]: kod’shei Hashem (the “holy things” of the Eternal), as in the expression eth mik’dsho mimenu⁶⁵Above, 18:29. [literally: “the Sanctuary thereof,” which really means: eth kodsho mimenu — “the hallowed part thereof”]. Thus the [punishment of] excision mentioned in [this] section refers to [entering] the Sanctuary [whilst impure, as stated above in Verse 13], and [eating] its hallowed offerings [in such a state, as mentioned in this verse here].
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that [implied] by the literal meaning [of Scripture], namely that the first [mention of] excision [in Verse 13] refers to one who [actually] touches the corpse, as He said, Whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead,⁶⁶Verse 13. and the second [mention thereof, i.e., in Verse 20 here] applies to those who were rendered impure by ohel³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. but did not [actually] touch the bone or the grave; for the meaning of [the expression] but the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself⁶⁰Here in Verse 20. is: “but the man that shall be unclean by any of these means [mentioned in Verses 14-16] and shall not purify himself, [that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly].” By way of the Truth [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], it is possible that the expression mikdash Hashem is alluding to the Sanctuary of the Sanctuary.⁶⁷A reference to the Glory of G-d (Abusaula). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 272.

עוד טומאתו בו, even though he had immersed himself in a ritual bath.

עוד טומאתו בו, “his contamination is still upon him.” A condition that continues indefinitely until he has purified himself.”

This excludes that of an animal. Meaning that once it is written “a corpse” it is obvious that it is “a soul”! Rashi answers that this is an explanation of the word “corpse,” meaning that the verse says “whoever touches a corpse” and [then explains] which type – “the corpse of a human soul…” [One might ask:] Above it is also written, “The corpse of any human soul” (v. 11)! The answer is that above it is written במת לכל נפש (lit. "The corpse to any [human] soul") and this is the equivalent of writing במת של כל נפש האדם ("The corpse of any human soul"). There the meaning of the lamed is like the lamed in Parshas Vayishlach (Bereishis 32:18-19): למי אתה (lit. "To whom are you?") meaning, “Of whom are you?” Also like the lamed in [the verse following] לעבדך ליעקב (lit. "To your servant, to Yaakov") meaning “Of your servant, of Yaakov.” But here the word מת ("corpse") and the word נפש ("soul") are both prefixed by a beis, thus it appears that the phrase “whoever touches” refers to both, [implying that they are independent of each other], as in the manner of a verb in a construct with a subsequent beis. Therefore, Rashi says that even so, the phrase “whoever touches” refers only to the word מת (corpse) and consequently he comments that “soul” is an explanation of the word “corpse.”

V. 13. כל הנגע וגו׳. Mit großer Präzision scheint hier Ausdruck und Konstruktion zur Vergegenwärtigung des Begriffs des טומאת מת gewählt zu sein. Es heißt nicht כל הנגע בנפש אדם אשך מת, dann würde in der Leiche die gestorbene נפש oder die נפש des gestorbenen Menschen vorliegen. נפש האדם und נפש האדם אשר ימות ist auch ein ganz anderes als נפש אדם und נפש אדם .נפש אדם אשר מת ist die Seele eines einzelnen Menschen und נפש אדם אשר מת die Seele eines gestorbenen Menschen. נפש האדם ist aber die Seele des Menschen, die Menschenseele überhaupt, und האדם אשר ימות ist nicht ein gestorbener Mensch, sondern der Mensch insofern er dem Tode erliegt, insofern er sterblich ist, נפש האדם אשר ימות demnach: die Seele des dem Tode erliegenden, die Seele des sterblichen Menschen. Jeder מת, jede Leiche vergegenwärtigt die נפש האדם אשר ימות, vergegenwärtigt den dem Tode erliegenden Menschen überhaupt und legt die Gefahr nahe, diese im Tode sich dokumentierende physische Unfreiheit auch auf das psychische Wesen des Menschen in dessen Verbindung mit dem physischen während des Lebens zu übertragen. — נפש האדם אשר ימות ist der lebendige Mensch, der sich der über ihn verhängten Sterblichkeit nicht entziehen kann, eine den Menschen beherrschende Notwendigkeit, die jede Leiche ad hominem demonstriert. Jeder gestorbene Mensch vergegenwärtigt den Sterbenden, den lebendigen Menschen, wie er dem Tode erliegt, der נוגע במת ist daher in der Idee נוגע בנפש אדם אשר ימות, und zwar בנפש האדם וגו׳ als ein generelles, den Menschen als solchen ereilendes Geschick. בנפש האדם וגו׳ ist daher motivierende Einleitung zu הנגע במת, er bedarf der חטוי, nicht weil er נוגע במת, sondern weil er durch die נגיעה במת in der Idee auf נפש האדם אשר ימות hingeleitet wird. Es ist also entweder Apposition zu במת oder, wie wir es übersetzt, ist das ב von מת das Medium, das vermittelnde ב.

עוד טומאתו בו, “his ritual impurity is still part of him.” He should not say to himself that seeing that if after seven days of counting this did not avail him anything to enter the sacred precincts around the Temple, at least it was good enough so that if he comes into contact with people, at least he will not transfer his ritual contamination to them; the Torah therefore states that having only performed part of the ritual is completely ineffective, he is as contaminated as previously.

את משכן ה' הוא טמא HE DEFILES THE TABERNACLE OF THE LORD, if he enters the forecourt even though after having immersed himself, but without having been sprinkled on the third and seventh days,

Refers to a quarter of blood. Which emanates from a corpse. [This teaches] that one who touched the blood would be rendered impure for seven days, requiring sprinkling on the third and seventh days. Accordingly, the meaning of the beis would imply [that the phrase “whoever touches” refers to the words “corpse” and “soul” independently]. This is why Rashi brings the second interpretation. However, according to the second interpretation there is a difficulty that the verse should have stated “or a soul…” given that “soul” is not an explanation of the word “corpse.” Therefore, Rashi also brings the first interpretation.

Wie aus V. 16 erhellt, ist daher auch טומאה nicht durch eine ganze Leiche bedingt, sondern jedes Teilchen eines gestorbenen Menschen, durch welches die Idee des ganzen repräsentiert wird, alles, wie Nidda 55a erläutert wird, שנברא עמו ואין גזעו מחליף, was mit dem Menschen geboren wird und, wenn verloren, sich nicht vollständig wieder reproduziert, ist מטמא. Also nicht Zähne, Haare, Nägel, die sich vollständig reproduzieren, wohl aber בשר Muskelfleisch, das bei Wiederherstellung נעשה מקומו צלקת, noch eine Narbe lässt. Blut wäre nun als sich vollständig wieder ergänzend von טומאה ausgeschlossen, wenn es nicht als nächster organischer Träger der נפש dies am ersten repräsentierte, und lehrt daher die Halacha an unserem Texte, הנגע במת בנפש וגו׳, dass רביעית דם הבאה מן המת מטמא (Chulin 72a; siehe zu Dewarim 21, 11).

עוד טמאתו בו HIS UNCLEANNESS IS YET UPON HIM, although he has immersed himself.

If he enters the [Mishkon] courtyard. The verse implies that when he is impure he defiles the Mishkon of Hashem, but why would the Mishkon be defiled just because he was impure. Rashi answers that it refers to a case where he was impure and then entered the courtyard before having been sprinkled upon. You might ask: Rashi should have explained, “If he enters the Mishkon…” [and not, “If he enters the courtyard.]” The answer is that if so, this would have implied that it was specifically now when he was impure that he was forbidden to enter, but that when he was pure it would be permitted. But surely a non-kohein is forbidden to approach the Mishkon, even when he is pure. Regarding Rashi’s explanation that this is even after ritual immersion, we need not ask that perhaps it is specifically only when he does not immerse that there is a prohibition for him to enter the courtyard. For Rashi himself explains the term, “His impurity remains,” by saying that it implies that he had somewhat purified himself, however part of his impurity still remained. This was because he did not have the sprinklings on the third and seventh days. If so, this implies that even if he had already immersed he would be forbidden from entering. Alternatively, it is written, “Because the sprinkling water was not sprinkled on him…” Learn from there that it refers to one who had immersed, because if he had not immersed the verse should have said, “He did not immerse in water and [the sprinkling water] was not sprinkled on him.” Rather, one must say that it even refers to a case where he did immerse.

את משכן ד׳ טמא, selbst wenn er טבילה genommen, so lange er nicht die hier vorgeschriebenen הזיות vollzogen, und ohne solche das משכן betreten. V. 20 heißt es ebenso כי את מקדש ד׳ טמא. Wenn משכן die Bedeutung des Heiligtums als Stätte der Gottesgegenwart ausspricht, מקדש, als Stätte der heiligenden Erhebung alles Irdischen zu Gott (siehe zu Dewarim 25, 8): so dürfte durch diese beiden Stellen der Begriff טומאה ebenso als Gegensatz zu dem durch משכן vergegenwärtigten Gottesgedanken, wie zu der Heiligung alles irdischen Seins und Wollens ausgesprochen sein, die im מקדש und durch dasselbe zum Ausdrucke kommt. Dass כרת nicht für die Unterlassung der הזאה, sondern für das Betreten des מקדש ohne vorgängige הזאה ausgesprochen sein könne, das ist nach dem ספרי z. St. schon aus dem vorhergehenden Verse evident. ואם לא יתחטא לא יטהר heißt es da, nicht עונשו לא יטהר ואין ,ואם לא יתחטא ונכרתה וגו׳ עונשו כרת. Es ist daher das את מקדש ד׳ טמא noch als zum Vordersatz gehörig aufzufassen: jeder, der nach Berührung einer Leiche ohne חטוי das משכן betreten und diesem damit טומאה gebracht hat, ונכרתה וגו׳. Wahrscheinlich jedoch ist das את משכן usw. einfacher Nachsatz und ביאת מקדש ohne הזיה liegt schon im ולא יתחטא. Im הזית vorhergehenden Verse war nämlich bereits ausgesprochen, dass ohne vorhergegangene לא יטהר שלישי ושביעי, er durch die (V. 19 ausdrücklich vorgeschriebene) טבילה am siebten Tage nicht rein werden kann. Daran schließt nun V. 13 den Fall, dass jemand ohne הזיה durch bloße טבילה sich als rein benommen, das heißt ja nichts anderes, als dass er sich ohne הזיה, wenn auch nach טבילה, mit מקדש und קדשים in Berührung gesetzt. Sein vermeintlicher טהרה-Zustand tritt doch eben nur in solcher Berührung hervor. In Wahrheit liegt daher schon in dem ולא יתחטא die ganze Konsequenz der ביאת מקדש oder אכילת קדשים ohne הזיה, und das את מקדש וגו׳ kann füglich als Nachsatz gelten.

טמא יהי׳ עוד טומאתו בו: das Fehlen der הזאה wirkt ganz so wie das Fehlen der טבילה. Das Gesetz über das Fernbleiben des טמא aus dem מקדש und von den קדשים ist bereits oben Kap. 5, 2 u. 3, sowie Wajikra 22, 2 ff., 15, 31 u. 5, 3 ausgesprochen, und tritt hier nur die Bestimmung hinzu, dass alle die der הזאה bedürftigen טמאי מת ohne הזאה selbst nach טבילה noch in der טומאה verharren.

כל הבא אל האהל ALL THAT COMETH INTO THE TENT, whilst the dead body is within it, shall be unclean seven days.

WHEN A MAN DIETH IN A TENT. The meaning thereof is: “When a man dies, and he is now [lying] in a tent” [even though he may have died outside the tent and was later on brought in]; or it may be that Scripture speaks about the usual circumstances [and people usually die inside a building], but the same law applies if he died outside and they brought him into the tent. All that come into the tent and all that is in the tent — this includes the vessels therein and the tent itself, as He said [further on], and he shall sprinkle upon the tent and upon all the vessels and upon the persons that were there.³⁰Further, Verse 18. Scripture mentions the tent in order to let us know that the tent itself is rendered unclean for seven days, and [in order to become clean again] requires sprinkling [with the waters of purification]. Furthermore, the Israelites were tent-dwellers in the wilderness and Scripture spoke of the usual [circumstances at that time], because the commandment applied [both] immediately and for later generations; but the same law applies to a house and to everything that “covers” [a corpse], namely that they convey uncleanness to all the vessels and persons that are there, except that a house which is [permanently] attached to the ground cannot itself become impure [unlike a tent which is also defiled].
Now Scripture stated [that] a corpse [conveys] impurity by contact³¹Verse 16: And whatsoever toucheth … shall be unclean for seven days. — See Vol. III, p. 129, Note 150, on the interchangeable use of the terms “clean,” and “unclean,” or “pure” and “impure.” and by an ‘ohel,’³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. but does not mention [that it also conveys impurity to the person who] carries it. Our Rabbis, however, deduced it by a kal vachomer³³Literally: “a minor and major.” See Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208 for a fuller explanation of this principle. from [the law of] a dead animal,³⁴“If a dead animal, which only renders one impure until [the same] evening, and does not convey impurity by ohel (see Note 32), nonetheless does convey impurity [to one who] carries it — surely a corpse [which conveys impurity for seven days, and also by ohel, conveys impurity to one who carries it]! And just as in the case of a dead animal, touching it conveys impurity until the [same] evening and carrying it [likewise] conveys impurity until the evening, so also in the case of a corpse, where touching conveys impurity for seven days, carrying also conveys impurity for seven days” (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tumath Hameith, 1:2). and have included it in [the law of] uncleanness of seven days, just like [one who] touches [a corpse]. This is also in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture, for He mentioned in the case of one who dies [of his own accord] or was killed that he who touches him becomes unclean for seven days,³¹Verse 16: And whatsoever toucheth … shall be unclean for seven days. — See Vol. III, p. 129, Note 150, on the interchangeable use of the terms “clean,” and “unclean,” or “pure” and “impure.” and [requires] sprinkling [with the waters of purification]; and it is already known that [the word] “touching” in the Torah refers to actual personal contact, and to contact through another object, that is, by carrying it [in which case he is “touching” the object carried by means of the intervening object].

זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל, "This is the Torah (law), when a person dies inside a tent, etc." The words זאת התורה in this verse can be explained along the same lines as I have explained the words זאת חקת התורה in verse 2. This is because the Torah commences this verse with the word אדם. Our sages in Baba Metzia 114 have taught us that the description אדם applies only to Jews. The Torah therefore teaches here that only the bodies of dead Jews are capable of conferring ritual impurity on people who are under the same roof; bodies of dead Gentiles are not able to have that effect on anyone under the same roof with them. The Torah wrote זאת התורה in order to provide the background to this halachah. Only people who have been given the Torah have absorbed the kind of sanctity during their lifetime which attracts the spiritually negative influences to their remains in swarms.

אדם כי ימות באהל, “a person who dies in a tent (roofed airspace).” The verse describes real, not potential, scenarios. The legislation described here applies equally to people who die outdoors and to whose remains are transferred to a roofed airspace such as a tent or house.

אדם כי ימות באהל, “when a person dies in a tent (or house), etc.” although the legislation which follows applies equally to people dying inside a house or other roofed structure, the Torah chose the example of “tent” since at the time the Israelites in the desert lived in tents. Legislation mentioned here is valid both at the time it was written and for all future generations. We learn from here that contamination caused by being in the same enclosed airspace with a corpse results only from the corpse of a Jew as only Jews qualify for the title “אדם.” (compare Ezekiel 34,31 “for you My flock are אדם”). Although there are verses scattered throughout the Bible in which the Gentiles are referred to by the same “title” (Numbers 31,11), the sages have already answered this apparent contradiction in Yevamot 61, namely the word had to be used there in order to distinguish Gentiles from beasts which were also numbered as part of the booty. A similar explanation applies to the verse in Jonah 4,11 where אדם is contrasted with the beasts. In other words, the only time the term אדם is used for Gentiles is when it is in contradistinction to בהמה, beast. We are still faced with the word אדם referring clearly to Gentiles in Psalms 124,2. Megillah 11 explains that in that verse the word אדם means “ordinary human,” not a “king.” Another instance which appears to bestow the title אדם on Gentiles is found in Isaiah 43,4. The Talmud Berachot 62 suggests that the word in Isaiah be read as אדום instead of as אדם, i.e. that the “people” G’d will give as ransom for the Jewish people will be the Edomites. A more problematic text involving the word אדם is Leviticus 18,5 on which Sanhedrin 59 suggests that even a Gentile who studies the laws of sexual chastity and observes them attains the level of purity reserved for the High Priest. It is pointed out that in the relevant verse the word for the Gentile is האדם as distinct from אדם. Whenever the Torah speaks of האדם, Gentiles are not excluded. This leaves us with Jeremiah 32,20: where G’d speaks of miracles performed “before Israelites and אדם,” which appears to imply that both peoples merited the miracles, i.e. were on similar ethical levels. The problem is answered by pointing out that whereas these miracles were beneficial for the Israelites, they were at the same time extremely damaging to the Egyptians who are referred to in that verse as אדם. It is clear therefore that far from equating the Israelites and the אדם, i.e. Egyptians as on a similar moral level the prophet wanted to contrast the levels of Israelites with that of people characterised as אדם.

While the corpse is inside. Rashi negates the following: Do not say the tent would always render one impure, even after the corpse was removed. Logically [this is not so] since there is nothing there to render one impure, for surely one is not touching or carrying any impure object. It is understandable when the corpse is in the tent, then we regard it as if the tent is filled with impurity. For since the impurity cannot be contained it spreads out and rise up, permeating the tent. However, it is [only] when it is not contained, that impurity permeates the tent, making one who enters the tent as if he had touched the impurity itself.

V. 14. טומאת מגע במת .זאת התורה וגו׳ ist bereits in den vorigen Versen besprochen worden. Es ist dies eine Empfangungsart der טומאה, die allen טומאות gemeinsam ist. זאת התורה: das hier folgende ist eine טומאת מת eigentümliche, תורה חדשה, wie ספרי es nennt, die nur bei מצורע, der auch מטמא בביאה ist (siehe Wajikra 13, 46), eine Analogie hat. Sie, טומאת אהל, findet nach einer Lehre (Jebamot 61a) nur bei מת ישראל statt, worüber die Halacha nicht ganz entschieden ist, während טומאת מגע ומשא ohne Unterschied bei jeder menschlichen Leiche stattfindet, worauf vielleicht schon das הנגע במת לכל נפש אדם des V. 11 hinweist. Ja, in Erläuterung des Satzes או בקבר (V. 18) זה קבר שלפני הדבור, womit auch קבר שלפני הדבור in טומאת מגע mit eingeschlossen wird, ist תוספו׳ daselbst der Ansicht, dass טומאת אהל bei קבר שלפני הדבור, d. h. bei allen vor Erteilung des Gesetzes Gestorbenen nicht angeht, כי ימות באהל heißt es, wenn von nun an und weiter ein אדם באהל stirbt, und ist מו׳׳ר המנוח מהור׳׳ר יעקב עטלינגר ז׳׳ל im ערוך לנר zu Jebamot 61a der Meinung, dass dies auch die Ansicht des רמב׳׳ם sei. Raschi fasst das קבר שלפני הדבור (Nasir daselbst) anders auf (vergl. Wajikra 13, 2).

זאת התורה, “this is the law;” what has been introduced at the beginning of this chapter is a statute of the Torah.

כל הבא אל האהל וכל אשר באהל, “whoever enters the tent or whatever is in the tent already, etc.” This includes the utensils in the tent already, as well as the tent itself. We know this from the requirement to also sprinkle the tent itself with the waters and ashes from the red heifer. (Compare verse 18 where this is spelled out). The reason why the verse mentions the word אהל, tent, is to tell us that the person entering that tent itself has become ritually contaminated for seven days minimum. The verse also informs us by inference that the Israelites during their 40 years in the desert lived in tents. The Torah paints scenarios familiar to the people, seeing that the legislation would apply immediately, not only once they crossed the river Jordan into the Holy Land. The same rules would apply to permanent housing. However if such a house would be firmly attached to the ground it stood on the house itself would not become ritually contaminated. [The repeated use of the word אהל, tent is meant to exclude certain structures that perform functions similar to those of tents, i.e. houses attached firmly to the ground they stand on. Ed.]

כל הבא אל האהל, “anyone entering the tent, etc.” is contaminated as a result. If someone carries the corpse or touches it he is most certainly no less contaminated than someone merely sharing the same airspace with the corpse. Seeing that we have legislation decreeing ritual impurity on anyone carrying dead beasts which had died by natural causes as opposed to ritual slaughter although such impurity lasts only for a day, it is clear that carrying a human corpse would be at least as much a cause for contracting severe ritual impurity as if one merely shared the same airspace with it. This is why the Torah did not have to bother to spell out this detail in connection with contact with a corpse through carrying it. We find a similar silence of the Torah on the prohibition of a father sleeping with his daughter seeing the Torah had already forbidden sexual relations between the same man with his granddaughter (Leviticus 18,10). Another example of the Torah remaining silent on a law that can be derived by simple logic (קל וחומר) is the prohibition to eat meat and milk together. If the Torah had already forbidden for milk and meat to be cooked together, it is clear that it must not be eaten together either after it has been cooked.

כל הבא אל האהל וכל אשר באהל, "everyone who comes into that tent and everything which is already inside the tent, etc." The difficulty in this verse is that if a ritually impure person entered the tent containing the dead body of a Jew and becomes defiled thereby why does the Torah have to tell us that the artifacts or another Jew already inside the tent become defiled by their presence in that tent? I have found the following line in Pessikta Zutratey. "The words כל הבא אל האהל mean that he entered only with part of his body." Accordingly, we may conclude that if the Torah had written only כל הבא אל האהל, I would have assumed that such a person contracts impurity only if his entire body enters the tent. How would I have known that he becomes ritually defiled even if only part of his body entered the tent? To teach us this the Torah also wrote כל אשר באהל. Seeing that the Torah had already told us that if one enters the tent with one's whole body one becomes ritually defiled, the words כל אשר באהל must refer to people who entered the tent with only part of their body. I have also found the following in that same paragraph of the Pessikta Zutratey: "An alternative meaning of these words could be that the words כל הבא אל האהל teach us that for halachic purposes we treat the floor of the tent the same as its airspace down to the bowels of the earth." It would appear that the authors were forced to come up with this interpretation because according to the reasoning employed in the first explanation the Torah should have written the two statements in the reverse order, i.e כל אשר באהל followed by כל הבא אל האהל. In that event I could have applied the principle of לא זו אף זו, that the Torah did not only teach me one lesson but also a second lesson. The first lesson would have referred to the entire body entering, the second lesson that even if only part of the body enters that tent the body still becomes ritually unclean. The fact that the Torah first wrote the words כל הבא tells us that the words כל אשר introduce a new halachah altogether.

כל הבא אל האהל, sofort mit dem Eintritt, selbst ספרי) הבא מקצתו), selbst wenn auch nur ein Glied des Körpers ins Zelt gekommen, in welchem eine Leiche sich befindet, ist der ganze Mensch טמא. Nasir 43a: דאהל המת כמליא טומאה דמי ומיד תוספו׳ שהושיט ידו בפנים כאלו נגע במת daselbst. Mit dieser Erläuterung dürfte sich die Frage des16 הל׳ טומאת צרעת מל מb lösen. Es ist nicht, weil ביאה במקצת שמה ביאה sondern weil es so gut wie נגיעה במת ist. — כל אשר באהל, nicht nur alles, was unter der Überdachung sich befindet, sondern auch, was im Grund und Boden vergraben liegt; der Begriff Haus erstreckt sich bis in die Tiefe, (5 ,15 ספרי אהלות) לעשות קרקעו של בית עד תהום כמוהו.

כל הבא אל האהל, “anyone who enters the tent (or house) in which there is a body of a human being, (and any item in the house at the time);” the reason that this has been spelled out is that you could have thought that ritual impurity originating in a dead body is transferred only through touching that body, but not through sharing the air under the same roof as that in which the body reposes. The novelty of this legislation is such that it needs to be spelled out. וכל אשר באהל, “and everything inside that tent (or house).” Why did this have to be written? if the Torah declared anyone entering such a tent as becoming ritually impure, i.e. before he had even entered with his whole body, it is understood that things inside that tent already and completely, will have the same status, no less. The answer is again that a penalty for something must be spelled out, and cannot be decreed merely by reasoning, however logical. Some commentators understand the line: כל הבא אל האהל, as including even living creatures other than human beings that are in that tent at the same time as the corpse is still there. The same would be true for chattels that had been in that tent while the corpse was still alive. (Source unknown)

However, in the Sifri on our verse I have seen both explanations, the first one attributed to the editor, and the second one attributed to Rabbi Acha bar Yoshiyah. The editor concludes by saying that the reason the Torah had to write the words כל אשר באהל although it had already written כל הבא אל האהל is to include someone who enters the tent only partially. The reason this had to be spelled out is that one cannot impose a penalty on anyone merely by applying logic but that this has to be spelled out in the Torah. I do not understand this comment at all; it is our tradition that this principle applies only to sins involving the death penalty by execution of a human tribunal. In this instance, even if the person in question entered the Sanctuary in a state of ritual impurity, he would be guilty only of death at the hands of heaven. Furthermore, the whole principle of אין עונשין מין הדין is not relevant here at all since the punishment had already been spelled out. Once we have established that a person is culpable for defiling part of his body, there is no need to inform us that he will be culpable if he defiles his whole body seeing that every part of his body is part of the whole body. The culpability for the former has been spelled out in our verse and has not been derived through mere logic.

דרך פתחו הוא טמא ואין מטמא בכל צדדיו כשהוא פתוח .כל הבא אל האהל, so lange das Haus eine zum Eingang und Ausgang bestimmte Türe hat, macht nur das Betreten des inneren Raumes, nicht aber das Berühren der äußeren Wände בית סתום .טמא aber und פרץ את פצימיו, ist aber die Türe mit Entfernung der bisherigen Türeinfassungen völlig vermauert, so hat es den Charakter eines geschlossenen Grabes und ist ספרי) מטמא כל סביביו, Baba Batra 12a; — siehe V. 16).

Der Begriff אהל wird durch jede Überdachung von mindestens einem Kubik-טפח repräsentiert und erstreckt sich auf alle Räume, die mit dem ein מת überdachenden Raum durch eine Öffnung von mindestens einem Quadrat-טפח verbunden sind (Oholot 13, 1f.; siehe daselbst).

So wie ferner ein אהל טפח die טומאה auf alle Gegenstände unterhalb verbreitet, so schützt es auch alle über demselben sich befindenden. Es ist מביא und חוצץ (Oholot 8).

וכל כלי פתוח AND EVERY OPEN VESSEL — Scripture is speaking of an earthen vessel which is not receptive of uncleanness by an unclean thing touching its exterior but only by it being in its interior (even without contact with the interior walls; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:33); therefore if the cover that forms its lid is not well joined to it by a perfect contact, it (the vessel) becomes unclean; but if the lid is joined upon it, it is clean, whilst metal vessels would in any case become unclean, whether they are closed or not, since they are receptive of uncleanness whether an unclean object touches them on their inside or on their outside (Chullin 25a).

An earthen utensil … but from its inside. For we find in Parshas Shemini (Vayikra 11:33) that an earthen utensil does not render articles impure from its outside, only by means of its airspace. “Thus [if its seal]…”

V. 15. וכל כלי פתוח וגו׳. Durch כל אשר באהל des vorigen Verses ist schon ausgesprochen, dass alles, was überhaupt für טומאה empfänglich ist (siehe V. 13), somit auch כלים; die sich unter einer Überdachung mit einer Leiche befinden, טמא werden. Wenn daher hier das טמא-werden eines כלי an das Nichtvorhandensein eines festen Deckelverschlusses geknüpft wird, so kann da nur von solchem כלי die Rede sein, dem die טומאה nur durch den geöffneten inneren Raum kommen kann, שטומאתו קודמת לפתחו, bei welchem die טומאה auf die zu öffnende Öffnung wartet, wie es Chulin 25a heißt, weil die Berührung der Außenseiten es nicht טמא machen würde, das מיטמא מאוירו und nicht מיטמא מגבו. Als solches haben wir bereits Wajikra 11, 33 כלי חרש kennen gelernt und von einem solchen ist hier die Rede. כלי חרש שיש עליו צמיד פתיל, zu dessen אויר die טומאה nicht gelangen kann, bleibt selbst טהור im אהל המת und schützt dessen Inhalt vor טומאה, ist טמא הוא — .מציל באהל המת, es steht hier nicht שבעת ימים, wie in dem vorangehenden und nachfolgenden Verse, eben weil es von כלי חרש spricht שאין לו טהרה במקוה (siehe Wajikra 11, Ende), daher טמא הוא, es ist absolut und bleibend ספרי) אין לו טהרה מטומאתו ,טמא).

פתיל is an expression denoting “joined” in the Arabic language. Similar is (Genesis 30:8; cf. Rashi thereon), נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי, “By bonds of God I have joined myself (נפתלתי) with my sister."

The word denotes attachment. You might ask: Previously in Parshas Vayetzei (Bereishis 30:8) regarding נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי ["I have been joined in Godly bonds"] Rashi comments: “Menachem ben Saruk explains this in his work in the sense of צמיד פתיל ["a cover fastened"] meaning, “I have become attached with attachments from the Omnipresent…” However I explain it in the sense of “stubborn and twisted” (Devarim 32:5)…” It would therefore be difficult to say that here Rashi explains [פתיל] like Menachem ben Saruk, given that he disagrees with him. The explanation is that above when Rashi says “I explain it in the sense of ‘stubborn and twisted’…” he is referring to the words נפתולי אלהים; however the last word נפתלתי is in the sense of צמיד פתיל ["a fastened cover"]. Therefore, here he also explains נפתלתי as meaning “I have been joined to my sister.” Nonetheless this appears to be a forced explanation, given that this is not the plain understanding of Rashi. The matter requires further investigation; see Gur Aryeh who comments at length.

צמיד פתיל. Beide Wurzeln צמד und פתל bezeichnen eine Verbindung. findet sich in צמד בקר, dem zusammengebundenen Ochsengespann, צמידים על ידיה, Armbänder ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור (Kap. 25, 3), Kennzeichnung des engen Anschlusses an das Peorunwesen. פתל in פתיל, dem aus mehreren Drähten zusammengedrehten Faden. Wie bereits wiederholt bemerkt, weist die Verwandtschaft mit בתל und כדל darauf hin, dass dabei der Begriff einer durch Verbindung untereinander bewirkten Absonderung von anderem vorwiegt, kommt ja daher auch פתיל in וקצץ פתילים (Schmot 39, 3) für den auch vereinzelt starken und steifen einzelnen Metalldraht vor. Es kann nun ein Deckel so hermetisch schließen, dass der Inhalt dadurch von allem außerhalb abgesondert ist, ohne dass doch der Deckel stofflich mit dem Gefäße verbunden ist; dann ist er פתיל, obgleich nicht צמיד. Würde man dann die Berührungsflächen durch eine sich verhärtende weiche Masse verstreichen, so träte zu פתיל noch צמיד hinzu, der abschließende Deckel würde mit dem Gefäße stofflich verbunden. So Kelim 10, 2: במה מקיפין בסיד ובגפסים בזפת וכו׳ ובכל דבר המתמרח .אין מקיפין לא בבעץ ולא בעופרת מפני שהוא פתיל. ואינו צמיד אשר אין צמיר פתיל עליו heißt daher: worauf kein abschließender Verband ist. Es versteht sich von selbst, dass dieser Deckel ebenfalls von חרש oder sonstigem nicht für טומאה empfänglichen Stoffe sein muss. Ebenso ferner wie כלי חרס מציל באהל המת ist, weil es nicht מקבל טומאה מגבו und daher abgeschlossen, der טומאה nicht zugänglich ist, so ist dies noch umsomehr bei denjenigen כלים der Fall, die nach Stoff oder Form überhaupt für טומאה unempfänglich sind, wie כלי גללים כלי אבנים usw. כלי עץ הגדולים הבאים במדה שאין מיטלטלין מלא וריקן usw. (siehe Wajikra Kap. 11, Ende), alle diese sind ebenfalls מצילים בצמיד פתיל (Kelim 10, 1).

על פני השדה [AND EVERYTHING WHICH TOUCHES] ON THE OPEN FIELD — Our Rabbis explained that this is intended to include the upper board and the side board of a coffin (which were on the surface of the field — that these, too, render a person unclean) (Chullin 72a). The literal meaning of the words על פני השדה is, however, that even where there is no אהל, covering, there too, the dead body may cause uncleanness, but only by contact with it.

AND WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH IN THE OPEN FIELD. “Our Rabbis have said that this includes the upper board and the side board [of a coffin, when found in the open field]. And the plain meaning [of the verse] is: in the open field where there are no tents, a corpse conveys uncleanness [only] by contact.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the opinion of the Sages³⁵The reference here is to Rabbi Yishmael, whose opinion on this matter is, according to Ramban, the accepted decision of the law. Rashi’s comment, however, follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiba (Chullin 72a) who does derive the principle of the upper board and the side board of the coffin from the verse before us (Mizrachi). the [law that the] upper and side boards of the coffin [convey uncleanness] is not derived from Scripture, but is a tradition [handed down by Moses who received it at Sinai]. Therefore a Nazirite [who has become impure by coming into contact with them] is not subject to [the law of] shaving his hair,³⁶See above, 6:9. In other words, since this impurity is not derived from a Scriptural verse, although it is in fact a law of the Torah and not merely of the Rabbis, the Nazirite is not considered as having defiled himself to the extent that he must start his period as a Nazir anew. and likewise [one who becomes impure through contact with them] is not liable to punishment for defiling the Sanctuary [by entering it when impure] or [by eating] the hallowed offerings [in such a state of uncleanness]. Rather, [the expression] in the open field is to be understood according to our Rabbis in its literal sense, i.e., that he touches a person who is slain by the sword, who has fallen in the open field, and there is nothing covering over the corpse. And since this verse is now [seemingly] superfluous, [since it has already been stated in Verse 11 above that one who touches a corpse becomes impure], the Rabbis derived from it the following interpretation, and they said in Tractate Nazir in the Chapter “The High Priest:”³⁷Nazir 53b. “And whosoever toucheth in the open field. This refers to one who ‘covers over’ a corpse” [and tells us that he becomes impure], since by covering over it he “touches” the open field. [According to this interpretation of the Rabbis the expression] bachalal cherev (slain by the sword) is lacking the [connective letter] vav — u’bachalal cherev, [meaning: “or slain by the sword”].³⁸Thus according to the interpretation of the Rabbis, two separate principles are enunciated in this verse: 1) and whosoever ‘touches’ upon the face of the field, i.e., who leans over a corpse or covers it with his body, because in doing so he “touches” the corpse; 2) or whosoever touches directly one slain by the sword. And since Scripture says ‘pnei’ hasadeh [literally: “the face” of the field] and does not [just] say “the field”, Rabbi Yishmael further interpreted it³⁹Chullin 72a. to exclude the [case of a] foetus which died whilst still in its mother’s womb [so that if the midwife put her hand inside the mother and touched it, she does not become impure], because it is impurity which is “swallowed up,” and is not “upon the face” of the place.
Scripture states slain ‘by the sword’ because it speaks of the usual [way of events], but the same law applies if the person was slain by a stone or fist. It mentions those killed and those who die [naturally, stating: one that is slain by the sword, or one that dieth of himself] in contrast to animals for [those animals, which are permitted as food] are pure if they are slaughtered properly, but if they die of their own accord [or were not slaughtered properly] convey impurity as carrion; whereas all human corpses convey impurity, regardless of how the person met his death]. Since it appears superfluous, however, our Rabbis interpreted it in the following manner, namely [that the expression one that is slain by the sword is intended to teach us] that the sword [with which the person was slain] is exactly like the slain person himself, and the whole purpose of the verse is to equate the slain and the sword, so as to say that it [the sword] becomes an avi avoth hatumah (a progenitor of a primary source of impurity),⁴⁰In the process of conveying impurity from one source to another, the general rule is always that the defilement of the recipient is of a lesser degree than that of the conveyor. But here in the case of a dead body there is a point of novelty. Since the corpse itself is considered an ‘avi’ avoth hatumah (a progenitor of a primary source of impurity) the sword which touched him should have become only an av hatumah (a primary source of impurity), while the rule is that it becomes an avi avoth hatumah just like the dead itself. Hence a person that touches the sword which was so defiled becomes an av hatumah (a primary source of impurity), and not a rishon l’tumah (a first degree of impurity) as would be the ordinary rule. See further on these laws in Vol. III, p. 148, Note 252. It should also be pointed out [for the sake of the following text of Ramban] that the above principle of the sword [becoming an avi avoth hatumah just as the corpse] applies also to all metal vessels which have been rendered impure by a corpse. just like the dead person himself, and it conveys impurity of seven days’ duration to people and vessels. It appears from the text of the Mishnah and Gemara⁴¹See Ramban in his commentary to Baba Bathra 20a where he discusses at length these “texts of the Mishnah and Gemara” which corroborate his opinion. It is of interest to note that Ramban cites there also the varying opinion of Rabbeinu Tam [the outstanding authority among the masters of the Tosafoth] who holds that the sword is equated entirely to a corpse, even in regard to the impurity of ohel (see Note 32 above). — For the term Gemara see in Vol. II p. 132, Note 204. that it [the sword and all metal vessels] convey impurity by contact and through carrying just like the corpse, but it is unlike the corpse in [that it does not] convey impurity by ohel³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. [i.e., if it is in a tent or building together with a person or object, that person or object remains pure]. Perhaps the Rabbis based this exclusion on the verse dealing with the tent, which says: when ‘a man’ dieth in a tent,⁴²Verse 14. [thus implying that the law of “the tent,” i.e., that of conveying impurity by ohel], applies only to the dead body itself. And if a sword [or metal vessel] which became impure by [touching] a corpse were to convey impurity of ohel, the priests would be forbidden to enter all buildings [even after the removal of the corpse], for they all have a “sword” [i.e., some metal vessel]⁴³See Note 40 above. which has become impure, and it would defile them by ohel³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. [and it is obviously impossible to say that priests may never enter all buildings]!⁴⁴This problem was proposed by Rabbeinu Chayim Hakohen to Rabbeinu Tam: “If so, what house would you build for them [the priests], and what place may be their resting place?” (see my Hebrew commentary p. 270). It further appears in the Gemara⁴⁵Nazir 54b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 270. that a sword [or metal vessel] which touches a corpse does not render a person [who touches it] impure to the extent that he requires to be sprinkled [with the waters of purification] on the third and seventh days,⁴⁶Verse 12. even though the person who touches [the sword or vessel] becomes a “father of impurity.” This is because in the second verse where He states and he shall sprinkle upon the tent⁴⁷Verse 18. The fact, that in this verse which speaks of the sprinkling of the waters of purification upon the impure, it does not mention that he became defiled by having touched “one that is slain with a sword,” indicates that he is rendered impure for a seven days’ duration, yet he does not require the sprinkling of the waters mentioned. it says, and upon him that touched the bone, or ‘the slain,’ or the dead or the grave,⁴⁷Verse 18. The fact, that in this verse which speaks of the sprinkling of the waters of purification upon the impure, it does not mention that he became defiled by having touched “one that is slain with a sword,” indicates that he is rendered impure for a seven days’ duration, yet he does not require the sprinkling of the waters mentioned. but it does not say “or one that is slain with a sword.” If so, the sword [and all metal vessels] are like the corpse [in degree of impurity] only to the extent that one who touches it is rendered impure for seven days’ duration, but not [to the extent that a sword conveys impurity] by ohel³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. [as does a corpse], nor [to the extent that one who touches it] requires sprinkling [of the waters of purification]. Likewise a Nazirite does not have to cut off his hair [on account of being in a tent together with it], nor is there any prohibition at all against a priest touching it [whereas he is prohibited from touching the corpse itself.]⁴⁸Leviticus 21:1. This is the most likely and reasonable explanation, based on the words of our Rabbis. But we because of our sins are now impure in the exile, and we do not know of the purity of holiness until the spirit be poured upon us from on High,⁴⁹Isaiah 32:15. and G-d will sprinkle clean water upon us⁵⁰Ezekiel 36:25. and we shall become pure. Amen, and may this be the will [of G-d] speedily in our days.

וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה, if one enters a closed area, roofed area in which the remains of the deceased are present one becomes ritually unclean, whereas if the remains of the deceased are in an open area such as a field, only direct contact with the deceased confers such ritual impurity.

בחלל חרב, “one slain by the sword,” Nachmanides writes that here too the Torah uses a scenario that is commonplace, but the same law would apply if the dead had been slain by a stone or other means even if he had become the victim of his killer’s fist. The reason why the Torah uses the word מת, “someone dead,” without elaborating, as well as the detailed description חלל חרב, “slain by the sword,” is to make us aware of the halachic difference of an animal that was killed by ritual slaughter, (sword-like instrument) and only thereby does not become ritually unclean upon death, and a human being where such a death confers immediate severe ritual impurity. Our sages add another lesson to be learned from the word חלל חרב, namely that the sword that killed the person in question contracts the same degree of ritual impurity as the corpse, not one degree less as is commonly the case when one touches the source of the ritual contamination.

בחלל חרב או במת, “someone slain by the sword or one that died naturally;” if the Torah had wanted to equate the two examples of corpses it should have used the expression: בחלל או במת, “someone slain or dead of natural causes.” Why did the Torah mention חרב, “sword?” The Torah chose an example of most victims who die a violent death. Although the Torah chose the example of the “sword” as the cause of death, the same contamination occurs when the victim was killed by a stone or a wooden arrow, for instance (Maimonides Hilchot Tumat Met 1,2).
Our sages in Shabbat 101 point out, however, that the example חרב, i.e. a metal tool, means that the metal weapon contracts the same degree of impurity אבי אבות הטומאה, the absolute primary cause of ritual contamination, as does the corpse itself. The reason is that the sword, by definition, is a means for causing death, is designed to cause death and therefore ritual impurity. The sword, while halachically contracting a degree of impurity equaling that of its victim, the corpse, in that the impurity it confers upon those touching it lasts for seven days, and requires the same purification rites as does the one who became defiled through contact with the corpse itself, does not confer such impurity by the person being merely in the same airspace with it. We derive this from the words אדם כי ימות באהל, “i.e. when a human being dies inside a tent, etc.” the corpse can confer ritual impurity upon such a person, the sword by which he was killed, however, cannot confer that particular type of impurity. The truth of this statement is guaranteed, as if such a sword could confer impurity by a survivor being in the same tent with it, all the priests would be forbidden to enter their own houses seeing each of them contains a sword or metal tool such as a nail which by its very presence would confer impurity on the priest concerned.
This concept has been illustrated by Rabbi Chayim from Germany who sent the following inquiry to Rabbeinu Tam (grandson of Rashi): Seeing that every house at one time or another contains a corpse, and it also has metal nails which are an integral part of its construction, what house can one build in order to avoid ritual contamination by these factors? (The Rabbi quoted Isaiah 66,1 “which is the kind of house that you (man) can build for Me (G’d)” as the gist of his question.) Clearly, Rabbi Chayim understood the reference to חרב in our verse as including all kinds of objects made of iron, otherwise his question does not make sense. [this is in contrast to some authorities who understand the word חרב as applying only to the murder weapon or other weapons made of the same material]. The question therefore presupposes that Rabbi Chayim applied the term חרב to mean that any metal object would confer the status of absolute prime cause of ritual contamination on anyone in the same airspace as it. This understanding of the halachah is based on a statement in Shabbat 101 where Samuel said that a ship (and contents) which lay at anchor and was connected to the harbor by means of iron chains will incur ritual impurity of primary severity (אב הטומאה) if the chain touched such a source of ritual impurity on the quay. Samuel’s statement was meant to apply to degrees of ritual impurity which are of Biblical force, as opposed to ritual impurity due to Rabbinic decree. At any rate it is clear from what he said that he did not distinguish between a sword and some other tool made of metal.
In Pesachim 14, where mixing oil of the Menorah which has been disqualified by differing degrees ritual impurity is discussed, the Talmud states that the words בחלל חרב in our verse mean that a metal lampstand which has become contaminated by a primary cause of impurity has the same degree of impurity as the corpse which made it impure in the first place. This is beyond dispute where the lampstand was in direct contact with the corpse (after death) as opposed to it having been the cause of death of the person who contaminated it.
We have learned in Keylim 1,1: “primary causes of ritual impurity are: 1) a dead unclean reptile; 2) semen which is still virile; 3) a person who became ritually unclean through a corpse. Seeing the person who was in some kind of contact with a corpse becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, it is clear that the source of that impurity, i.e. the corpse itself must be of a higher degree of impurity, i.e. the one known as אבי אבות הטומאה, “the root cause of impurity.” It is well known that derivatives of such a root cause of impurity have the ability to confer descending degrees of impurity to a sixth level (generation) not further. [In other words, anyone more than six persons or objects removed from the root cause cannot be negatively affected by such a root cause. Ed.] The six levels of ritual impurity are known in descending order of severity as: 1) אבי אבות הטומאה, 2) אב הטומאה, 3) ראשון לטומאה, 4) שני לטומאה, 5) שלישי לטומאה, (applicable only to תרומה, produce imbued with a low level of holiness. 6) רביעי לטומאה, (applicable only to matters imbued with high levels of sanctity such as sacrificial meat). We do not encounter a further 7th level of impurity as permanent purity is attached to anything that far removed from a primary cause of impurity. These waters are known as מים טהורים, “pure waters,” as we know from Ezekiel 36,25: “I will sprinkle upon you (the people of Israel) pure waters.” During periods of exile, these waters are known as שערי דמעה, “the gates of tears,” seeing that tears are a derivative of the power reposing in water. Our sages in Baba Metzia 59 are on record that even when all other “gates” (such as the gate of prayer) are locked, the gates of tears always remain open, i.e. our prayers when accompanied by tears always can reach heaven. This seventh level of purity [i.e. a level beyond possible contamination, Ed.] is known as the מים העליונים, the waters of the upper regions (Chagigah 15). This is another name for the attribute (emanation) of חסד which is the seventh emanation counting from the lowest one, מלכות. In the Torah these waters are described as מים חיים, “waters which retain the quality of life.” They are the waters which the prophet Zecharyah refers to as emanating from Jerusalem on the day heralding the redemption (compare Zecharyah 14,8). When the prophet describes these waters as coming forth from Jerusalem, he refers to celestial Jerusalem. When you peruse the Torah’s report of the creation you will find the word מים mentioned 5 times in connection with the second day of creation and 2 more times in connection with the third day of creation. These seven occasions when מים is mentioned on those two days allude to the fact that the work of the second day was not really complete until the third day. [This is also why the words: “G’d saw that it was good,” are absent in the Torah’s report of what was created on the second day. Ed.].
Our sages in Tractate Machshirim 6,4 speak of the existence of seven different kinds of liquids and the potential ability or otherwise of these liquids to contract and confer ritual impurity. The liquids in question are 1) dew; 2) water; 3) wine; 4) oil; 5) blood; 6) milk; 7) bees’ honey. The first time the word מים appears in the Torah in the report of G’d’s creative activity on the second day corresponds to the basic concept of water, a regular liquid. The other six times when the Torah refers to מים in its report of G’d’s activity on the second and third day what are meant are the derivatives of the basic element water, i.e. the six additional liquids (something fit to drink) mentioned in Machshirim. All the six other liquids listed in the Mishnah in Machshirim appear in the Bible as “drinks” employing either the term שתיה or השקאה. In Exodus 17,6 the Torah writes: “some water emerged (from the rock) and the people drank.” In Genesis 24,43 Eliezer asks Rivkah to let him drink some water. In Leviticus 10,9 the Torah forbids the priests to drink wine or liquor on certain occasions. In Jeremiah 35,2 G’d told the prophet to go to the house of the Rechabites and to give them wine to drink. The term used there is והשקית. Oil is used as a liquid used for drinking in Isaiah 25,6: “the Lord will make on this mount for all the peoples a banquet, משתה, containing rich oils.” Blood is mentioned in the Torah as a drink in Numbers 23,24: “Israel will drink the blood of the slain” (Balak’s prophecy/blessing). Another verse mentioning blood as a drink is found in Ezekiel 39,17 where G’d tells the prophet to address the birds promising them: “assemble and gather from all around for the sacrificial feast I am preparing for you;..... eat flesh and drink blood.” Dew is referred to as water, מים, in Judges 6,38 where Gideon is described as “squeezing the dew from the fleece, a bowlful of water.” Bees’ honey is mentioned as a drink in Deut. 32,13: “He made him suck honey from a rock.” Finally, milk is described as a drink in Judges 4,19: “she (Yael) opened a skin-bottle of milk and gave him some to drink.”

The gollel and dofek. Which are normally found in the open field. A gollel is the board that is placed over a casket as a cover, while those that form the walls are called dofek (Rashi to Sanhedrin Perek Nigmar Hadin 47b). There are those who explain (Tosafos there) that the gollel is the headstone, as it is written וגללו את האבן ["and roll the stone"] (Bereishis 29:3). And dofek is [understood] like the first explanation.

V. 16. וכל אשר יגע וגו׳. Von טומאת מגע war bereits Verse 11-13 abgeschlossen die Rede. Mit V. 14 זאת התורה wird die dem מת eigentümliche טומאת אהל-Lehre eingeleitet, V. 15 fortgesetzt und ihr gehört nach der Gruppierung der Sätze auch dieser V. 16 an. In der Tat wird auch Nasir 53b זה :על פני השדה המאהיל על פני המת erläutert und ebenso Chulin 72a: אשר יגע על פני השדה לרבות גולל ודופק. Die beiden vorhergehenden Verse sprechen nämlich von dem mit einer Leiche unter einer Überdachung sich Befindenden, der gewöhnlichen unter טומאת אהל verstandenen Weise, dieser Vers spricht von der zweiten Art טומאת אהל, dass etwas מאהיל על המת sei, dass etwas selbst in perpendikulärer Richtung über einem מת sich befinde, ein מת überdache, womit auch noch eine dritte Art טומאת אהל korrespondiert, dass das מת מאהיל עליו, dass etwas von einem מת überdacht werde, dass etwas in perpendikulärer Richtung unter einem מת sich befinde. Alle drei אהל-Arten sind nach der Halacha in ihren טומאה-Wirkungen völlig gleich (Oholot 3, 1). Dass aber hier diese טומאת אהל, das נגיעה ,מאהיל על המת genannt wird, darin dürfte eine Lehre רבאs (Chulin 125b) eine bedeutsame Bestätigung finden. Es wird dort nämlich eine טומאת אהל auch unter den Begriff מגע subsumiert, so, dass es eine אהל נגיעה, eine mit מגע im weiteren Sinne verwandte אהל-Art, und ein אהל גרידה, eine schlechthinnige אהל-Art gibt, und erläutert אהל נגיעה :רבא sei jedes מאהיל על המת, eben die אהלArt unseres Verses, wo das Überdachen als in Berührungkommen begriffen wird. אהל גרידה sei aber בהמשכה, dass, wie רש׳׳י erläutert, דבר אחר מאהיל עליו ועל הטומאה, dass ein drittes das reine Objekt und das מת zugleich überdache und dadurch ממשיך את הטומאה עליו die טומאה auf das bis dahin reine Objekt überleite, also eben die אהל-Kategorie, von welcher in Versen 14 und 15 gesprochen. Die Konsequenz, ob eine טומאת אהל als מגע zu begreifen wäre, liegt in צירוף, nach dem Kanon זה הכלל כל שהוא משם אחד טמא משני שמות טהור (Oholoth daselbst). Diese Unterscheidung רבא s scheint nach der ganzen dortigen Abhandlung sich als Halacha darzubieten. (Siehe תוספו׳ Chulin 126a רשב׳׳א ,ד׳׳ה מאן daselbst, רא׳׳ש zu Oholot daselbst und ist es auffallend, dass 14 ,4 הל׳ טומאת המת ,רמב׳׳ם diese Unterscheidung רבאs nicht adoptiert und ר׳׳ש im Kommentar zu Oholot 3, 1 ihrer nicht erwähnt וצ׳׳ע.)

וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה, “and anyone in an open field who touches, etc.;” seeing that it is under open skies, only actual touching of the body confers ritual impurity.

בחלל חרב, es heißt nicht einfach wie V. 18: בחלל, sondern בחלל חרב; es supponiert somit das Gesetz die Gegenwart des חלל und des חרב, des Werkzeugs seiner Tötung; aus der Anwesenheit des חרב ist ja überhaupt bei einem על פני השדה liegenden חלל erst zu schließen, dass er ein חלל חרב sei. Indem aber das Gesetz hier beide vergegenwärtigt, will es nach der Halacha (Nasir 53b) חרב הרי הוא כחלל sagen: es hat dieselbe Wirkung, ob er den חלל oder das חרב berührt, oder, nach der vorhergehenden Erläuterung מאהיל ist über den einen oder über das andere. Es ist aber nach der Halacha הרב nicht als Werkzeug des Totschlags, sondern einfach in Folge der Berührung des Toten diesem an טומאה-Wirkung gleich, und zwar hat nicht nur חרב, sondern jedes כלי מתכות, jedes Metallgerät, die gesetzliche Eigentümlichkeit, dass es in Berührung mit einem מת oder einem טמא מת den טומאה-Charakter des Berührten erhält, von einem מת wird es אבי אבות wie מת, von einem טמא מת wird es אב wie dieser. Jedoch nur in Berührung mit einem Menschen, כלי באדם, geht auf das כלי der טומאה-Charakter des berührten Menschen über, nicht aber כלי בכלי. Jedes אבי אבות und אב הטומאה ist טמא שבעה, jedes ראשון nur טמא טומאת ערב (siehe Verse 11 u. 22), אדם וכלים sind, wie bereits zu Wajikra, Ende Kap. 11 bemerkt, nur מקבל טומאה מאב הטומאה. Auf diesen gesetzlichen Tatsachen beruhen die Oholot 1, 1-4 gegebenen Sätze: שנים טמאים במת אחד טמא טומאת שבעה ואחד טמא טומאת ערב שלשה וכו׳ וארבעה טמאים במת שלשה טמאין טומאת שבעה ואחד טמא טומאת ערב כיצד שנים וכו׳ כיצד שלשה וכו׳ כיצד וכלים באדם )wird ואדם בכלים (אב, (sie werden ארבעה כלים נוגעים במת (אבי אבות (werden auch טמאים טומאת שבעה ,הרביעי בין אדם בין כלים טמא טומאת ערב (אב. Nach obigem sprächen somit diese Sätze nur von כלי מתכות. Es ist dies die Auffassung des ת׳׳ר. Der Auffassung des רבי יצחק מסימפונט zufolge, die auch diejenige des5 הלי טומאת מת רמב׳׳ם ist, haben alle כלים mit Ausnahme von כלי חרש, die ja überhaupt nie אב הטומאה geschweige denn אבי אבות werden, die durch חרב הרי הוא כחלל gegebene Eigentümlichkeit und sprechen diese Sätze von allen תוספו׳) כלים Nasir 54b ר׳׳ש .ד׳׳ה ת׳׳ש zu אהלות 1,2siehe Wajikra Kap. 11, Ende).

בחלל חרב, “regardless if death occurred as a result of the sword,” you should not say that the Torah had ruled only natural death as conferring ritual impurity on those touching the corpse, not unnatural death such as by violence of any kind, instruments designed to be used as weapons.

או במת או בעצם אדם, nicht nur eine ganze Leiche ist מטמא באהל, sondern auch schon הגלגלת ,השדרה ,כזית מן המת usw. (Oholot 2, 1) und um מטמא במגע ובמשא zu sein, bedarfs noch geringerer Teile, schon עצם כשעורה usw. (daselbst 3) sind מטמא במגע ובמשא, wenn gleich nicht באהל.

או בעצם אדם, “or by a human bone,” this verse teaches that in order to confer ritual impurity the corpse does not to be whole, even a bone suffices to confer such impurity (if a little flesh or skin is attached to it). The impurity this conferred on a person last a minimum of seven days even when all the rules of purification have been observed.

או בקבר: Nasir 53b heißt es: זה קבר סתום, indem hier von מאהיל על הקבר die Rede ist, so kann dies nur von einem allseitig geschlossenen Grabe reden, und zwar, wie תוספו daselbst erläutert, שיש בו פותח טפח innerhalb dessen zwischen der Leiche und der sie deckenden Erdschicht ein freier Raum von mindestens einem Kubik-טפח sich befindet. Durch diesen leeren Raum erhält erst die Erdumgebung der Leiche den eigentlichen Charakter als "Grab", und wenn dies, wie hier vorausgesetzt, von allen Seiten סתום, geschlossen ist, so ist es als קבר selbst מטמא כל צדדין, und wer darüber, selbst שלא כנגד המת wegschreitend מאהיל ist, wird טמא. Liegt aber die Erdschicht dicht auf der Leiche und fehlt הלל טפה, so ist nicht das קבר, sondern das מת מטמא, es ist dies dann: טומאה רצוצה, eine eingeengte טומאה, die בוקעת ועולה בוקעת ויורדת, die in Höhe und Tiefe unbeschränkt in perpendikulärer Richtung sich mitteilt, so lange sie nicht irgendwo durch ein אהל טפת, durch eine Kubik-טפח große Überdachung gehemmt wird. Es würde dann nur der טמא werden, der das Grab an der die Leiche deckenden Stelle überschreitet, und zwar nicht durch das Grab als solches, sondern durch das מת, das als בוקעת ועולה :טומאה רצוצה ist. So auch. 4 ,7 הל׳ טומאת מת :רמב׳׳ם ראב׳׳דhat eine andere Auffassung.

או בעצם אדם או בקבר, “or direct contact with the bone of a human being, or contact with a grave;” of all the types of ritual impurity the one caused by a human copse is the most severe. This is why the sages define a human corpse as אבי אבות הטומאה, ”the original forefather of all ritual impurities.” The reason appears to be that the Torah wishes to insure that living human beings not spend their time with the corpses out of their love for the departed, nor out of the mistaken belief that these corpses could reveal secrets of the afterlife to them, or that they would make idols of the skins of such corpses, seeing that the skins could be preserved indefinitely when turned into leather. Alternately, they would demean their parents by making utensils out of their skins or bones, the very reverse of revering them. Even if the motivation is simply to treat the dead with respect, the Torah prohibits this as not the way to mourn and show respect for one’s ancestors. [The Nazis have demonstrated how by making lampshades out of Jews’ skins, they had found dead Jews useful, whereas they had no use for living Jews. Ed.] Our sages in tractate yadayim, chapter 4, Mishnah 6, already forbade making carpets out of human skins, i.e. walking on the skins of their parents. They similarly forbade using one’s parents’ bones to convert them into spoons and similar utensils. All of this is forbidden even if intended to be proof of how beloved one’s parents had been by their children, so that they felt the need to keep part of them around to remind them of their having existed. This may be why the bones of donkeys are not ritually unclean and do not confer ritual contamination, while the bones of one’s parents are.

Ein Feld, in welchem sich durch Umackerung eines darin befindlichen Grabes Gebeinsplitter an die Oberfläche "verbreitet" haben können, heißt בית הפרס, von (פרש) פרס verbreiten (siehe hierüber Oholot 17,1 f.).

AND HE SHALL PUT UPON IT RUNNING WATER INTO A VESSEL. The meaning thereof is not that he should first put the ashes [of the Red Heifer] into the vessel and then put the water upon the ashes, for our Rabbis have taught⁵¹Sotah 16b. that if one places the ashes in the vessel first and then the water, it invalidates [the water, so that it may not be used as water of purification]. They derived this law from the expression, running water into a vessel, which implies that the running water [alone] should be put into the vessel [i.e., there should be nothing-such as the ashes — intervening between the water and the vessel]. Perhaps they deduced it because He did not say: “And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification into a vessel, and he shall put upon it running water.” But [since Scripture put it in the reverse order: And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification — and running water he shall put thereto in a vessel], the meaning of the verse is as follows: “and he shall put upon the ashes the running water which was [already] in the vessel,” meaning that he should mix the ashes with the water which was in the vessel until the water flows over them.⁵²Thus first he puts the running water into the vessel, then the ashes, and afterwards he mixes the ashes with the water so that the water which was in the vessel is on top.

ונתן עליו מים חיים אל כלי, “and put upon it spring water into a vessel.” A superficial reading of the plain meaning of the text would lead us to believe that the water is to be poured into the container already containing the ash of the red heifer. However, this is not so. Our sages derived from the text that if someone puts the ash into the container first before adding the water, the whole procedure has become invalid. They base this on the words מים חיים אל כלי, implying that something live must first be in the vessel, in other words that the ash must be mixed with the water, so much so that the water eventually is covering the ash completely. (Compare Temurah 12)

V. 17. ולקחו ,ולקחו לטמא וגו׳: es ist dazu jeder erwachsene Vollsinnige, wie bei אסיפת האפר (V. 9) fähig (Joma 43 a). ולקחו ונתן der Wechsel im Numerus lehrt, dass beide Handlungen nicht durch eine und dieselbe Person zu geschehen brauchen (daselbst). עפר ,מעפר וגו׳ ist in erster Linie Erdenstaub, bezeichnet aber auch Kön. II. 23. 4 ff. durch Verbrennen erzeugten Staub: Asche. Ebenso Dewarim 9, 21 verglichen mit Schmot 32, 20. Hier dürfte der Ausdruck mit bedeutsamer Absicht gewählt sein (siehe unten). — ונתן עליו מים חיים אל כלי: bezeichnet einen kombinierten Akt. מים חיים אל כלי bestimmt, dass erst das Wasser in das Gefäß gegeben wird. Wenn das Wasser in das Gefäß kommt, ist noch nichts anderes darin; ונתן עליו der Aschenstaub soll aber sodann so in das Wasser gegeben werden, dass er nicht auf dem Wasser schwimmend bleibe, sondern durch Umrühren sich mit dem Wasser mische und das Wasser über den Staub komme. כתיב עליו אלמא אפר ברישא וכתיב מים חיים אל כלי אלמא מים ברישא הא כיצר וכו׳ אל כלי דוקא עליו לערבן (Sota 16 b). Dieses Geben und Mischen des Aschenstaubes ins Wasser heißt: קידוש, das so gemischte Wasser heißt: מי חטאת, und wird das Wasser nur מי חטאת in dem Momente, in welchem die Asche ins Wasser gegeben wird. אין מי חטאת נעשין מי חטאת אלא עם מתן אפר (Temura 12a).

מים חיים אל כלי, “fresh water into a vessel.” The word כלי here is interpreted as the respective first letters in the words: כהן, לוי, ישראל, i.e. when reading the Torah in public, a representative of each of these categories of Israel is to be called up to the Torah. The expression מים is a euphemism for the word: Torah, (Isaiah 55,1) and the word: חיים , is a euphemism for the Torah which is also known as עץ חיים, “tree of life.” (Proverbs 3,18)

Das zum מי חטאת bestimmte Wasser ist nur in ein Gefäß zu füllen, es ist jedoch jedes den כלי-Charakter tragende Gerät dazu tauglich, בכל הכלים מקדשים אפי בכלי גללים וכו׳ אין ממלאין ואין מקדשין ואין מזין מי חטאת אלא בכלי (Para 5, 5). Es muss das Wasser unmittelbar aus dem Quell in ein Gefäß aufgenommen werden (daselbst 6, 5). Unter den Begriff מים חיים fallen alle quellenden und höchst selten versiegenden Wasser, die keine chemische Veränderung (מוכים) erlitten, also nicht salzhaltige und nicht warme Quellen, nicht מלוחים und nicht פושרים (daselbst 8, 9). In die Ferne aus einem Quell fließendes Wasser ist so lange tauglich, als der Fluß nicht unterbrochen ist (daselbst 8, 11). — Siehe oben zu למשמרת למי נדה (V. 9), dass vom Momente des Schöpfens bis zum קידוש, d. i. bis die Asche in das Wasser gestreut worden, מלאכה פוסלת. Nach dem קידוש und selbst im Momente der הזיה stört מלאכה und היסח הדעת nicht. — Bechorot 29a wird gelehrt, dass ebenso wie הנוטל שכדו לדון ולהעיד דיניו ועדותיו בטלין so auch הנוטל שכרו להזות ולקדש מימיו מי מערה אפרו אפר מקלה dass somit der Akt des קידוש und der הזיה nur Gültigkeit habe, wenn er unentgeltlich geschehen, dagegen darf für הבאה ומלוי für das Herbeibringen der Asche und für das Füllen des Wassers Zahlung genommen werden. Nach Raschi daselbst und Kiduschin 58b käme bei הבאה und מלוי eine ihm nicht obliegende Mühe zur Vergütung, während bei קידוש und הזאה lediglich die Mizwaübung hervortritt oder, wie Raschi (Kiduschin) sich ausdrückt: שכר לימוד מצוה die Gesetzeskunde, für welche keine Vergütung genommen werden darf, nach dem Kanon: ראה למדתי אתכם וגו׳ מה אני בחנם אף אתם בחנם (Bechorot 29 a). Es scheint jedoch noch einer unterscheidenden Motivierung zu bedürfen, warum קידוש והזיה gegen Bezahlung ungültig sind und z. B. bezahlte כתיבת סת׳׳ם ,שחיטה ,טבילת כלי,, bezahlte הטלת ציצית, מזוזה בבית, בבגד usw. ihre Gültigkeit erlangen (siehe תוספו׳ Ketubot 105a ד׳׳ה גוזרי*). Es dürfte "vielleicht" קידוש והזיה mehr als andere Mizwaübungen dem Begriff der "Lehre" angehören, hinsichtlich deren ja zunächst das מה אני בחנם וגו׳ gesprochen ist und vielleicht weist hierauf das einleitende זאת התורה (V. 9) hin. וצ׳׳ע בצ׳׳ק לבכורות דט׳׳א דמשמע דס׳׳ל דהזיה וקידוש רמיא רחמנא על האי כהן דשייך בעבודה מ"ה אסור ליקח אפי׳ אגר בטלה דמוכח ע׳כ׳ל׳ וצ׳׳ע מאי קאמר ועי בריטב׳׳א קידושין נ׳׳ח ב׳ דס׳׳ל דהא דדינין בטלין קנסא דרבנן הוא וס׳׳ל נמי דשכר טבחים ובודקים שהוא מותר דהנהו פועלים נינהו ולא שבר הוראה הוא אלא שכר פעולה ועדיף משבר הבאה ומלוי וצ׳׳ע.

ולקחו וגו׳ ונתן, es muss die אפר durch bewusste Menschenkrafthandlung in das Wasser gestreut werden (Para 6, 1 und רמב׳׳ם daselbst).

הל׳ פרה אדומה 10, 2, 4 differieren ראב׳׳ד und רמב׳׳ם in Auffassung des פסול מלאכה und היסח הדעת siehe daselbst כ׳׳מ (siehe unten und zu V. 3).

V. 18. ולקחו וגו׳ איש טהור וגו׳. Zum Akt der הזיה ist jeder vollsinnige Männliche, selbst Minderjährige, fähig, während zum קידוש (V. 17) nur Volljährige, aber auch Frauen befähigt sind (Joma 43a).

ועל הנגע בעצם, “and on someone who had touched the bones of the dead.” The letter ב in the word בעצם has the definitive vowel kametz, as it refers to the word עצם in verse 16, i.e. only human bones. This is also the reason why the vowel under the words בקבר, and במת have the definitive vowels patach in our verse. Each refers to a previously mentioned grave or corpse.

כל אזוב שיש לו שם לווי פסול אזוב זה כשר :אזוב, es ist nur der gemeine Ysop, den man schlechtweg "אזוב זה, das ist Isop" ohne Beinamen bezeichnet, dazu tauglich (Para 11, 7). Mizwa ist es, drei einzelne Ysopstengel zu nehmen und sie zusammen zu verbinden, wie beim פסם מצרים (Schmot 12, 22). Es genügen jedoch zwei, und wenn infolge des Gebrauchs auch nur einer übrig geblieben, so kann auch damit noch ferner die הזיה vorgenommen werden (Sucka 13a), מצות אזוב שלשה קלחים ובהן שלשה גבעולין תהלתו שנים ושיריו אחד כשר, und hinsichtlich der Größe des Stengels, die von vornherein mindestens 1 טפח sein soll (siehe תוספו׳ י׳׳ט11, 9), ist er nach Abnützung bis zum Minimum tauglich גרדומיו כל שהוא (Sucka 13a). — והזה: Das Sprengen muss mit כונה, Absicht, geschehen, nach רמב׳׳ם mit der Absicht der טהרה, worauf das והזה הטהור על הטמא des folgenden Verses hinweise (Para 12, 3), nach (8, 10 הלי פרה) ראב׳׳ד פרה nur in der Absicht des Besprengens, ohne Absicht der טהרה-Wirkung. Darin unterscheidet sich הזיה von טבילה ,טבילה wirkt auch ganz absichtslos, גל שנתלש ובו מ׳ סאה ונפל על האדם ועל הכלים טהורין (Chulin 31a). Die הזאת מי חטאת bedarf nicht wie die הזיות דם. (Wajikra 4, 6) על כל הזיה טבילה, sondern so lange Wasser am Ysop ist, kann damit wiederholt gesprengt werden. Und der zu Besprengende braucht nur ein Minimum von Wasser an irgend einen äußeren Teil des Körpers zu erhalten, um טהור zu werden, אגבא דגברא אין צריכה שיעור (Joma 14a und Kiduschin 25a).

Das Bewusstsein des zu Besprengenden ist jedoch im Momente des Aktes nicht erforderlich, מזין על האדם מדעתו ושלא מדעתו (Para 12 a).

על האהל, das אהל selbst wird טמא, selbst wenn es מחובר und als solches sonst nicht מקבל טומאה ist. In dieser Beziehung haben jedoch nur solche Stoffe den אהלCharakter, die auch bei der Überdachung des משכן vorkommen, es sind dies Wolle, Felle, Ziegenhaare und aus dem Pflanzenreiche Flachs. Daher der Satz: כל היוצא מן העץ אינו מטמא טומאת אהלים אלא פשתן Schabbat 27b). Alle anderen Stoffe sind nur מקבל טומאה wenn sie nicht מחובר sind. Diese Unterscheidung hat jedoch nur Folge in Beziehung auf die טומאה der Überdachung selbst. Hinsichtlich der הבאת הטומאה der Übertragung der טומאה auf alles unter einer Überdachung mit dem מת sich Befindende sind alle Stoffe und מחובר und תלוש gleich (תוספו׳ daselbst und רמב׳׳ם, ראב׳׳ד und 12, 5 ה׳ טומאת מת ,מל׳׳מ).

וחטאו ביום השביעי AND HE SHALL PURIFY HIM ON THE SEVENTH DAY — This is the completion of his purification (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 129:2).

והזה הטהור על הטמא, “the ritually clean person is to sprinkle on the ritually impure person, etc.” Rabbi Akiva derived from the words על הטמא instead of simply עליו, “on him,” that the extra word teaches that if the ritually impure person was sprinkled with the ash/water mixture he would be purified by it, whereas if accidentally a ritually pure person was sprinkled with the same ash/water mixture such a person would become ritually impure as a result (compare Yuma 14). This is why Solomon said in Kohelet 7,23: “I said I want to acquire wisdom, but it has remained still far from me.”

This completes the purification. Rashi is answering the question: Is it specifically on the seventh day that he purifies him, but after the seventh day he would not be able to purify him? On the contrary there is a kal vachomer [a fortiori argument] that he may do so. Rashi explains the verse only comes to teach that the completion of the purification is on the seventh day, to exclude less than seven days. It is as if it stated, “On the day his purification is completed.”

V. 19. והזה הטהור על הטמא. V. 18 heißt es bereits ולקח וגו׳ איש טהור וגו׳, und würde daraus die Forderung absoluter Reinheit für den Fungierenden sich ergeben. Hier wird jedoch diese Forderung näher dahin präzisiert, dass es sich nur um den Charakter einer relativen Reinheit handelt, er braucht nur טהור im Gegensatz zu טמא, braucht nur nicht טמא zu sein, es genügt somit, dass er bereits einen Schritt aus der טומאה hinaus getan, bereits einen Grad der טהרה erreicht habe, wenn er gleich noch nicht völlig טהור geworden. Es wird daher daran die Halacha gelehrt, dass nicht nur zur הזיה, sondern überhaupt zum Vollzug des ganzen פרה-Aktes schon ein טבול יום tauglich ist, der mit טבילה bereits den ersten Grad der טהרה erreicht hat, und Dewarim 14, 8 טהור heißt: ורחץ במים וטהר (Joma 43b). Diese von der Halacha überlieferte Bestimmung, dass טבול יום כשר בפרה, ward von den Tradition leugnenden Saduzäern aufs heftigste bestritten. Um daher die Authentizität und Autorität bei einem so öffentlichen Akte wie פרה אדומה, bei welchem jeder einzelne hinsichtlich seiner טהרה so wesentlich beteiligt war, zu bezeugen und aufrecht zu halten, wurde öffentlich auf dem Ölberge vor Beginn seiner Funktion der fungierende Priester durch Berührung zu טומאה gebracht und sodann zur טבילה veranlasst, so dass offenkundig jede פרה אדומה durch einen טבול יום vollzogen wurde. מטמאין היו הכהן השורף את הפרה ומטבילין אותו להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים במעורבי שמש היתה נעשית (Joma 2a). Dem gegenüber war aber der ganzen Prozedur der Charakter der טהרה in gesteigertem Maße zu wahren und wurden dazu die umsichtigsten Veranstaltungen getroffen (siehe daselbst und Para 3).

'והזה הטהור על הטמא ביום השלישי וגו, “and the ritually pure person shall sprinkle on the ritually contaminated person on the third day, etc.: previously the Torah had spoken of people who had touched a whole corpse; here the Torah speak of people who had touched only parts of a corpse, such as a bone, or merely had visited the grave and therefore presumably been in the same airspace as the dead.

ואיש אשר יטמא וגו׳ AND THE MAN THAT IS UNCLEAN [AND DOES NOT PURIFY HIMSELF … HATH DEFILED THE SANCTUARY OF THE LORD] — If the Sanctuary is mentioned why is the Tabernacle also mentioned (in v. 13 “he hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Lord”)? etc., as is set forth in Treatise Shevuot 16b.

כי את מקדש ה' טמא, “when he contaminated the Sanctuary of Hashem.” The word כי here does not mean “for, because,” but “if, when,” as it does in Deuteronomy 22,6 in the verse commencing with כי יקרא קן צפור, “if, or when a bird’s nest happens, etc.” The reason why the Torah mentions the penalty for failing to purify oneself as being karet, exclusion from one’s people [after death, of course, Ed.] both in verse 13 and in our verse is, according to some of our sages, to inform us that the legislation is applicable both to the Tabernacle, i.e. someone causing contamination of the Tabernacle, and to the permanent Temple in the future. (Makkot 13,14) It is possible to understand the two verses at face value, by understanding the expression את מקדש ה', as referring to the sacrificial offerings inside the Temple, meaning that in verse 13 the Torah speaks about the person having eaten from such offerings while in a state of ritual contamination he did not only become guilty for that but also for having conferred ritual contamination on the Holy Temple, whereas here the Torah speaks about someone who, though he immersed himself in a ritual bath, did not submit to the sprinkling with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his contaminated status. The words מקדש ה' then refer to the structure itself, not to what had become consecrated within it as an offering. [“Within” includes the courtyard, the location of the principal Altar. Ed.] Personally, I believe that the correct interpretation is in accordance with the plain meaning, i.e. that the first time we hear about the penalty of karet in connection with ritual impurity in verse 13 refers to touching the dead, as spelled out there, הנוגע, and the second time this penalty is repeated is to teach us that even if one only contracts this ritual contamination by being in the same roofed space, the penalty for failing to purify oneself properly is the same. This is why in our verse no mention is made of “touching” anything.

Why was Mishkon stated? Meaning: If the Torah said that one is forbidden to enter the Mikdash while impure, [we would derive using a] kal vachomer [a fortiori derivation] that [it is also forbidden to enter] the Mishkon (v. 13) which was anointed with the anointing oil [while impure]. The answer is that if it had said "Mishkon" but not "Mikdash", I would have said that one was liable for the Mishkon because it was anointed with the anointing oil, which is not the case for the Mikdash which was not anointed with the anointing oil [and] therefore he is not liable. Conversely, if it had said "Mikdash" I would have said that this law applies [only] for the Mikdash whose sanctity is eternal, which is not the case for the Mishkon whose sanctity was only temporary. Thus the verse informs us [that this is not so].

ואיש אשר יטמא ולא יתחטא, “but the man that shall become ritually contaminated and does not take steps to purify himself, etc.;” the reason for this verse is unclear as the substance of it has already appeared in verse 13, where the Torah spoke of such a person having entered sacred areas around the Temple, and having become guilty of contaminating that area, and deserving punishment. The Torah wishes to make clear that we should not think that the penalty of which the Torah spoke in verse 13 applies only if such a ritually contaminated person entered sacred domains after having previously touched the dead, not if he had only been in the same covered airspace with the dead, when he would not be punished with extermination of his family; therefore the Torah repeats this legislation here. [Anyone who is not a priest is not obligated to cleanse himself from ritual impurity until he has to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the festivals, or unless for one reason or another he is obligated to offer a sacrifice. Ed.] We have now heard about the penalty for failing to purify oneself, where did we have the commandment to do so? We find it in Numbers 5,2: “anyone stricken with a serious degree of ritual impurity has to be sent outside the camp of the Israelites.” Who would like to remain ostracised?

כי את מקדש ה' טמא, for he has ritually contaminated G-d’s Temple.” He did so when entering its precincts while in a state of ritual impurity.” Why did the Torah in verse 13 speak of the person having contaminated the Tabernacle, and here it speaks of the person having contaminated the Temple? Are they not two sides of the same coin? If the Torah had only written this about the Tabernacle, I would have thought that the sanctity of the Tabernacle is greater, as it had been anointed with the oil of anointing. If the Torah had written this only about the Temple, I would have thought that the sanctity of the Temple was greater than that of the Tabernacle, as theTabernacle was designed only as a temporary structure. (Talmud tractate Shevuot, folio 16).

ומזה מי הנדה AND HE THAT SPRINKLED THE WATER OF SPRINKLING [SHALL WASH HIS GARMENTS] — Our Rabbis said that the one who sprinkles remains clean, and this statement is intended to intimate that one who bears the waters of purification becomes unclean with a more stringent uncleanness, in that he renders unclean the garments that are upon him (for it states here that he shall wash his garments), which is not so in the case of one who only touches these waters. And this fact that it here expresses it (the idea of “bearing the waters”) by the term “he that sprinkles” is only to tell you that they (the waters) do not render a person who bears them unclean unless they contain a quantity capable of being sprinkled (Yoma 14a).

ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו, “the one who administers the ash/water mixture has to wash his clothes.” Seeing that he himself is ritually pure and he administers the ash/water mixture to a ritually impure person why should he be required to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath? The reason is that in the process of sprinkling the ash/water mixture on the ritually impure person some of it may have splashed his clothing. This is what I have heard as an explanation of this halachah. However, the collective opinion of the sages in Yuma 14 is that the person concerned does not need to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath at all. The sages there understand the word מזה in our verse to mean נושא, “carries.” The reason why the Torah chooses the unusual word מזה to describe carrying is that the amount of water needed to wash the clothes in question is no larger than the amount of the ash/water mixture needed to sprinkle on the ritually impure person, just enough water as is absorbed by dipping the tips of the hyssop stalks in the mixture.

That the sprinkler is actually pure. Since it is written “the pure person shall sprinkle on the unclean person” (v. 19), but it is obvious that he was pure, for if he was impure then he would make the water impure [through contact with it]. Rather it was to teach that even though he sprinkled, he remains pure.

V. 21. והיתה להם לחקת עולם. Es ist dies ein noch für uns heute folgenreich bestehendes Gesetz. Da wir alle טמאי מת sind und aus Mangel an אפר פרה keine טהרה zu erlangen vermögen, schwebt noch heute כרת über jedem, der die Tempelstätte auf Moria im טומאה-Zustande betritt. Mit der Zertrümmerung des Tempels hat die Stätte ihre Heiligkeit nicht verloren, קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה וקדשה לעתיד לבא ,הל׳ בית וזבחירה ,רמב׳׳ם) siehe jedoch ;6 ,14 ראב׳׳ד daselbst).

ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו, “and the person who sprinkles the waters containing the ash of the red heifer, called here מי הנה, “water designed to purify by removing the offending substance.” This verse has been abbreviated; its meaning is as follows: “the waters designed to remove the offending substance;” however, the person coming into contact with these waters must subsequently immerse himself in a ritual bath, as well as his clothing, and he remains in a state of ritual impurity until the evening of that day.

והנגע…יטמא AND HE THAT TOUCHETH … SHALL BE UNCLEAN, but does not require washing of his garments.

That one who carries the purifying water becomes [extremely] impure … unlike one who touches. Meaning: One should not question the explanation that “One who sprinkles…” comes to teach that one who carries it becomes impure if he carries an amount sufficient for sprinkling. [For one might say:] Surely afterwards it is written that “One who touches the sprinkling water shall remain impure until the evening,” which also implies that if there is an amount sufficient for sprinkling that he becomes impure. But if “One who sprinkles” refers to one who carries, why does Scripture write “and one who touches.” If one who carries becomes impure, then surely the one who touches [would also become impure]. Rashi explains that the verse, “One who sprinkles…” comes to teach that one who carried the purifying water has to immerse his clothes, which is not the case for one who merely touches it. There he does not need to immerse his clothes. Though Rashi says “To contaminate the garments he wears,” this is also the case for any clothing or utensils that an impure person touches when he is in contact with the source of impurity. The reason why Rashi refers to garments that he wears [because the garments referred to here] would ordinarily be worn at the time of his contact with the impurity. When Rashi writes that he becomes extremely impure, this refers to one who does not carry the water in order to sprinkle it and before the commandment [of sprinkling] was performed. However, if it was carried in order to sprinkle or after the commandment [of sprinkling] had been performed, one who touched or carried the water would be pure. Re’m.

ומזה מי הנדה וגו׳ Mit dem והיתה להם לחקת עולם ist der zweite Teil des פרה-Abschnittes, der הזיה-Akt abgeschlossen, wie oben V. 10 in ähnlicher Weise והיתה וגו׳ לחקת עולם der erste Teil, der Verbrennungsakt. Schon aus diesem Grunde bezieht sich das folgende: ומזה וגו׳ nicht auf den zur טהרה eines טמא das Wasser Sprengenden. Es heißt auch nicht: וכבס המזה על הטמא את בגדיו wie V. 19 und analog dem 10. sondern ומזה מי נדה ohne Beziehung auf eine Person oder ein sonstiges Objekt, ganz so wie das folgende, והנגע במי הנדה das ja unzweifelhaft nicht von dem הזיה-Akt spricht, bei welchem ja gar keine Berührung des Wassers vorauszusetzen ist. Vielmehr spricht ומזח מי הנדה offenbar von dem Fall, dass jemand nicht zum טהרה-Zwecke das מי הנדה in Bewegung setzt, und ist damit der Gegensatz ausgesprochen: der מזה על הטמא bleibt טהור, aber der מזה מי נדה außer zum טהרה-Zwecke wird טמא. Es ist aber ein solches in Bewegungbringen nichts als משא, identisch mit היסט (siehe Wajikra 11, 24-25). Es lehrt daher auch die Halacha (Joma 14a), dass unter diesem מזה nichts als נושא zu verstehen, dies hier aber durch מזה ausgedrückt sei, um zu sagen, dass נושא מי חטאת nur טמא wird, wenn es ein zu הזיה taugliches Wasserquantum ist, דבעינן שיעור הזיה und ein solcher טעון כבוס בגדים. Wer aber bloß נוגע במי נדה ist, ist nicht מטמא בגדים, er wird aber durch solche Berührung טמא, selbst wenn das Wasser kein שיעור הזיה hat. Daher Kelim 1, 1 u. 2 die Sätze: אבות הטומאה השרץ וכו׳ ומי חטאת שאין בהם כדי הזיה הרי אלו מטמאין אדם וכלים במגע וכלי חרס באויר ואינם מטמאין במשא. למעלה מהם נבלה ומי חטאת שיש בהם כדי הזיה שהם מטמאין את האדם במשא לטמא בגדים במגע וחשוכי בגדים במגע (siehe Wajikra 11, 24-25).

והנוגע במי הנדה יטמא, “anyone coming into contact with that water will become ritually unclean.” This is the answer to the deviationist cults among Jews who claim that the reason why the red heifer confers ritual impurity on all the people involved with it, is, because the whole ritual was performed outside the camp of the Jews. They claim that if people involved with it would not become ritually impure, we are afraid that anyone could henceforth claim a special status of superior sanctity for himself and take from the ash of the cow and sprinkle himself with this “holy” water, claiming that thereby they would achieve a higher degree of purity. To forestall such practices, the Torah decreed that everyone involved with the red heifer would become ritually unclean as an immediate result of this. (Compare B’chor shor) If you were to ask that if a mere sprinkling of the water caused ritual impurity, should not direct physical contact, touching it, do so even more so? So why did this have to be spelled out in our verse? The answer is again that penalties for incorrect behaviour must have been spelled out, and cannot be meted out when based only on our logic. I am not like many commentators who query the words of our sages, all of which are words of truth; [Our author is absolutely correct. [This editor has never come across a commentator whose work he has translated, in which some of these commentators have not only disagreed with the words of their colleagues usually of former years, so that these commentators could no longer defend their opinions, but they even questioned those commentators’ very legitimacy, and berated them. Ed.] Nonetheless, I cannot conceal that I am puzzled by a statement in the tractate פרה, chapter 3, mishnah 3, where we read that at the entrance to the עזרה, courtyard of the Temple, was set ready a pitcher of the ashes of the red heifer, a sin offering, and they brought a male from the sheep, and tied a rope between its horns and they tied at the end of the rope a stick with a pine cone and threw it into the pitcher, and the male was struck so that it fell over backwards, and he took it and sanctified it so that the ashes became visible above the waters in the pitcher to the onlookers. [The purpose of all this was to avoid the person handling the ashes to have to touch it personally and thus contract ritual impurity. Eliezer HaKalir composed a liturgical poem based on the text of this mishnah, recited in many synagogues in the morning prayer on the Shabbat on which this section of the Torah is especially read out of turn shortly before Passover. Ed.] According to our author that everyone involved in these procedures requires to have himself sprinkled in order to regain ritual purity, how can the last person in the chain regain it? By whom will he be sprinkled?[Rabbi Chavell in his annotations quotes the Talmud in Yuma folio 14 as answering this by saying that a minor who is not subject to becoming ritually impure was used to do this. Ed.]

But his garments do not require ritual washing. Meaning that because “one who sprinkles” refers to the one who carried the water, it should have said “one who touches” along with “one who sprinkles” [in the first part of the verse]. For it is the manner of Scripture to include both touching and carrying together, but here they are mentioned separately. Rather it is to teach that “[his garments] do not…”

וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא AND WHATSOEVER THE UNCLEAN PERSON TOUCHETH — i.e., this unclean person who has become unclean by reason of a corpse, SHALL TOUCH, יטמא SHALL BECOME UNCLEAN.

והנפש הנוגעת, a third party who had had direct contact with someone had had direct contact with the deceased, תטמא עד הערב, will become ritually defiled only until the evening of that day (and can immerse himself in a ritual bath to regain ritual purity).

וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא, והנפש הנוגעת תטמא, “Anything which the contaminated person will touch shall become contaminated, and the person who touches him will become contaminated.” The meaning of the words והנפש הנוגעת is: “a person who touches another who has been contaminated by direct contact with the corpse will also be contaminated.”

Which this person who became impure through contact with a corpse. Meaning that there is a question as to which impure person the verse refers. Apparently the word הטמא ["the impure person"] refers to the person who was just mentioned, the one who touched the purifying waters. But this cannot be, because one who touches the purifying waters is impure only until the evening, thus he cannot contaminate another person. Rashi therefore answers that “the impure person” here refers to one who became impure through contact with a corpse and he “shall be ritually impure,” meaning that if he touches utensils then they will become impure. Rashi adds the word בו ["him"] to indicate what he touched. He also explains that the word בו refers to one who became impure through contact with a corpse and not to one who touched a person who became impure through contact with a corpse.

V. 22. וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא וגו׳. In dem ersten Satze heißt es יטמא, ohne beschränkenden Beisatz, im zweiten Sätze יטמא עד הערב. Nach Aboda Sara 34b spricht daher der erste Satz von טומאת שבעה und zwar בחיבורין, d.h. derjenige, den der טמא in dem Momente berührt, in welchen er selber noch mit dem מת in Berührung ist, wird טמא טומאת שבעה. Der zweite Satz spricht aber שלא בחיבורין, d. h. derjenige, der den טמא מת berührt, nachdem dieser bereits außer Verbindung mit dem מת getreten, wird nur טמא טומאת ערב. Das מת ist אבי אבות הטומאה, der es berührt wird אב הטומאה und macht den Menschen der ihn שלא בחיבורין berührt zum ראשון, dessen טומאה nur bis zum Abend dauert. Wenn nach der oben zu V. 16 zu חלל חרב bemerkten Auffassung alle כלים bei מת und טמא מת den Charakter des von ihnen berührten Gegenstandes annehmen, so erklärt sich, warum in diesem zweiten Satz והנפש, also אדם besonders hervorgehoben ist; denn כלים, welche einen טמא מת selbst שלא בחיבורין berühren, würden wie der von ihnen berührte טמא מת auch אב הטומאה und somit טמא טומאת שבעה werden. Rambam 2 ,5 הל׳ טומאת מת fasst diese טומאה בחיבורין nur als דרבנן auf (siehe כ׳׳מ und מל׳׳מ daselbst).

וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא, “and whatsoever the ritually contaminated person touches will be unclean as a result.” Our verse speaks of people touching the person still in contact with the corpse. Seeing that the chain had not been broken, that person will also incur severe ritual contamination, i.e. requiring not just a ritual bath to cleanse himself, but the whole procedure, as if he himself had been in contact with the corpse.

והנפש הנגעת AND THE SOUL THAT TOUCHETH him that hath become unclean by reason of a corpse,

The one defiled by the corpse. Meaning: Someone who touched another person who had become impure through contact with a corpse would become impure until the evening. Rashi asks: It is understandable that he could make utensils impure, because one who becomes impure through contact with a corpse has the status of a primary impurity and utensils can become impure through touching a primary impurity. However why would someone who touched this impure person become impure? Surely a person cannot become impure through touching a primary impurity, only from an אב הטומאה ["father of impurity"]? Rashi answers that “from here we learn…”

Vergegenwärtigen wir uns die hier über פרה אדומה und טומאת מת gegebenen gesetzlichen Bestimmungen und versuchen wir, die Gedanken zu ermitteln, die in denselben zum Ausdruck kommen dürften, so glauben wir zuerst den Begriff festhalten zu müssen, unter welchem das Gesetz selbst uns diese ganze פרה אדומה-Institution denken lässt, den Begriff "חטאת" nämlich, mit welchem das Gesetz sie charakterisiert und von welchem aus es ihre Einzelbestimmungen gestalten lässt.

והנפש הנוגעת, “and anyone touching a person who had become contaminated by contact with the corpse but was no longer touching same at that time, will confer a milder degree of ritual impurity on those touching him, who will only have to immerse themselves in a ritual, bath and become automatically pure again in the evening.

תטמא עד הערב SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVEN — Here we learn that a corpse is a progenitor of a primary source of uncleanness, and he that touches it becomes a primary source of uncleanness and can render a human being unclean. — This is its explanation (that of the whole chapter) according to what it literally implies and according to the Halachoth connected with it. — A Midrashic explanation I have copied from the work of R. Moses the Preacher, and this is:

Let the cow come and atone… You might ask: Surely a prosecutor cannot become a defender, for we similarly apply [this rule] concerning the golden vestments of the Kohein Gadol (Vayikra 16:4). He is forbidden to wear golden vestments when performing the service inside Holy of Holies because of the sin that was committed through gold. Here too surely the sin was done through the calf. The answer is that it was specifically regarding the service inside the Holy of Holies that it is forbidden because [we apply the principle that] a prosecutor cannot become a defender. For we see that [the Kohein Gadol] did serve wearing the golden vestments outside the Holy of Holies. Here too with the red cow, which was offered outside, it would not be fitting to say [the principle] that a prosecutor cannot become a defender. You might ask: Rashi below explains that the service of the red cow was not done by Aharon because [of the principle that] a prosecutor cannot become a defender! The answer is that Aharon is different, because the sin occurred through his [own] hand. However regarding the red cow, it is not this cow that was involved in the sin of the golden calf, only an animal of the same species. You might ask: In Parshas Shemini (Vayikra 9:2) it writes concerning Aharon, “Take a calf for yourself” and Rashi explains, "To show that Hashem had forgiven him for the incident with the golden calf.” [Surely there we see that] there was no difference between outside or inside the Holy of Holies. The answer is that there it refers to a case where he was atoning for himself, thus it was not appropriate to apply [the principle] that a prosecutor cannot become a defender, even though this was atoning for him regarding the sin of the golden calf. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: What is the connection between the red cow, which purifies after becoming impure through contact with a corpse, and atonement for the incident with the golden calf? The answer is that if they had not sinned with the golden calf they would have lived forever, as is stated in the first chapter of [Tractate] Avodah Zarah (5a): Rabbi Yosi says: Yisroel only received the Torah in order that the Angel of Death would not rule over them, as it is written, “So that it will be good for you.” However, when they sinned, Hashem said, “Rather, you shall die like man.” Consequently we see that death itself is an inherent consequence of the golden calf, and thus Hashem said “Let the child’s mother [the cow, mother of the calf] come and wipe away [the filth].” This is why it is used for purification.

חטאת, Entsündigung, Aufhebung der Sünde und des Sündigens, ist ein Begriff, welcher ausschließlich der Sphäre des sittlichen Gebietes angehört. Wenn daher das Gesetz seine פרה אדומה-Institution, die חוקת התורה, die die Grundinstitution der ganzen טומאת מת-Lehre bildet, welche selbst wiederum als die Hauptkategorie der ganzen טומאה-Lehre überhaupt dasteht, wenn es diese Institution חטאת nennt, so verweist es uns sofort aufs entschiedenste auf das sittliche Gebiet als denjenigen Gedankenkreis hin, innerhalb dessen wir überhaupt die Bedeutung der ganzen טומאה- und טהרה-Gesetzgebung und der פרה אדומה-Institution im besonderen zu suchen haben, und dürfte damit zugleich der Auffassung, in welcher wir bereits von allen bisherigen טומאה- und טהרה-Gesetzen ein Verständnis angestrebt haben, eine nicht zu verkennende Bestätigung gewähren. "Sittliche Freiheit", meinten wir, sei die erste und unerläßlichste Grundbedingung der ganzen Lebensheiligung, zu deren Anstreben das göttliche Gesetz uns verpflichtet, und eben diese allererste Grundwahrheit aller zur Gestaltung unserer Lebenstätigkeit bestimmten Wahrheiten glaubten wir durch alles das gefährdet, was das Erliegen des Menschen dem Tode, was eine Menschenleiche der oberflächlichen Beschränktheit von einer, alles und auch den Menschen zwingend beherrschenden Naturnotwendigkeit durch ein so vor Augen liegendes Faktum demonstrieren möchte. Erliegt im Tode der ganze Mensch, ist es überhaupt "der Mensch", der in der Leiche vom physischen Zwange bewältigt daliegt, steht demnach der Mensch, der ganze Mensch, auch im Leben, wie alle übrigen Naturwesen, unter dem Banne einer alles bezwingenden Notwendigkeit: so gibt es überall neben diesem physischen "Muss" keinen Raum für das sittliche "Soll", so ist sittliche Freiheit eine Täuschung und das ganze göttliche Sittengesetz mit seinen Anforderungen freiester Hingebung alles Seins und Wollens an das leuchtend und läuternd gestaltende, wärmend und belebend beglückende Feuer seines Heiligtums eine unbegreifliche Supposition (vergl. Wajikra 5, 13 u. a. über das Identische der Freiheit des Seins und des Wollens in dem Begriff קדושה).

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.

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.

Just as the calf defiled… Because [the transgression of] the calf was idolatry and idolatry makes one impure like one who becomes impure through contact with a corpse, as is written in Tehillim (106:28) “They attached themselves to Baal Peor and ate the sacrifices of the dead.”

Dem gegenüber tritt die טומאה- und טהרה-Gesetzgebung, wie sie uns im dritten Buche vorliegt, und setzt dem entsittlichenden Wahn physischer Unfreiheit das göttlich verbriefte Faktum der sittlichen Freiheit gegenüber, indem sie das ganze Leben hindurch, wo immer nur durch ein Moment physischer Gebundenheit die Energie des sittlichen Bewusstseins getrübt zu werden droht, das טהרה-Moment der sittlichen Freiheit wach zu rufen sucht, wie wir diese einzelnen טומאה- und טהרה-Momente in den betreffenden Gesetzesabschnitten kennen gelernt.

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).

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).

Hier lässt nun dieselbe טומאה- und טהרה-Gesetzgebung in nationalster Öffentlichkeit für die nationale Gesamtheit und durch deren priesterliche Vertreter, im Anblick ihres Gesetzesheiligtums, vermittelst eines bedeutsamen Aktes den großen Gedanken: "חטאת" proklamieren und damit als sittliche Basis des ganzen Volkslebens die Wahrheit niederlegen, dass der Mensch "sündenfrei sein und werden und bleiben könne."

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.

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.

Das ist die Bedeutung dieses חטאת, dieses Entsündigungsaktes außerhalb des Heiligtums. Es ist nicht wie die Entsündigungsopfer im Heiligtum die Entsündigung einer bestimmten Persönlichkeit von einer bestimmten Verirrung durch den symbolischen Gelobungsakt künftiger Pflichttreue. Es ist vielmehr die öffentliche Bezeugung der Möglichkeit der Sündenfreiheit, der Beherrschungsfähigkeit allen physischen Reizen gegenüber, die Proklamierung der Tatsache des sittlichen Willensvermögens im allgemeinen.

Aber es proklamiert diese Freiheit des Menschen im Anblick seiner Gebundenheit, es zeigt das sittlich Freie im Zusammenhange mit dem physisch Gebundenen, es lehrt nicht, die Augen zudrücken über das, was der physischen Gebundenheit in der Natur des Menschen angehört, es zeigt den Menschen mit dem ganzen Gegensatz in seinem Wesen, mit dem Sterblichen neben dem Ewigen, mit dem Gebundenen neben, dem Freien, mit dem Physischen neben dem Sittlichen, und indem es ihn in der Ganzheit seiner zweifaltigen Natur vor das eine Bestimmungsheiligtum seines einen einzigen Gottes, des absolut freien Einen stellt, hebt es ihn mit seinem ganzen Wesen, mit seinem physisch vergänglichen und seinem sittlich ewigen, in das freie, ewige Reich dieses einen Einzigen empor und spricht zu ihm: lass dich nicht irren durch Leiche und Tod, werde frei, werde unsterblich nicht trotz, sondern mit allem dem, was an dir physisch gebunden und sterblich ist, bleibe unsterblicher Meister deines sterblichen Leibes, bewahre dir und bewähre die טהרה inmitten der טומאה!

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

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

Von diesem durch den חטאת-Begriff gewonnenen Standpunkte aus, dürfte sich die פרה אדומה-Institution also aussprechen:

אל אלעזר הכהן TO ELEAZAR THE PRIEST — just as they gathered together against Aaron who was a priest to force him to make the golden calf. But because Aaron had made the calf this rite was not entrusted to him that it should be carried out by him, because the prosecuting counsel cannot become the defending counsel (Rosh Hashanah 26a; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 16:4; Aaron who had caused the sin was not a fitting person to atone for it: therefore the rite had to be performed by another priest, viz., by Eleazar).

אל אלעזר הכהן TO ELEAZAR THE PRIEST — just as they gathered together against Aaron who was a priest to force him to make the golden calf. But because Aaron had made the calf this rite was not entrusted to him that it should be carried out by him, because the prosecuting counsel cannot become the defending counsel (Rosh Hashanah 26a; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 16:4; Aaron who had caused the sin was not a fitting person to atone for it: therefore the rite had to be performed by another priest, viz., by Eleazar).

פרה אדומה תמימה אשר אין בה מום אשר לא עלה עליה עול ist das Physisch-Animalische, das in vollster Lebensfülle (vollrot אדומה תמימה), fehlerloser Ganzheit (אין בה מום) und Reife (בת ג׳ שנים) seiner Bestimmung nach als פרה: der dienende Gehilfe der Menschenarbeit sein sollte, aber noch nie seine Kraft im Dienste des Menschen geübt (פסול עבודה), ja, noch nie das Zeichen der Dienstbarkeit getragen (פסול עול — siehe V. 2), dies, somit Repräsentant der von dem Menschen nicht beherrschten physischen Natur und zu solchem Zwecke von nationaler Gesamtheit (מתרומת — בני ישראל הלשכה) genommen und dem כהן, einem Diener des Gesetzesheiligtums, übergeben, auf dass dieser namens des Gesetzes dieses Heiligtums lehre, welche Stellung und Bedeutung die vom Menschen nicht kontrollierte physische Natur im Lebensbereiche des Menschenvereins einnehme, der sein Leben unter dem Einflusse dieses Gesetzes sich gestalten lassen will. Es ist der כהן, der מכין und מכונן, der das Volkesleben seinem Ziele zu "bereitende und Richtung gebende" dem als solchem die פרה אדומה vom Volke übergeben wird und der dabei eben בבגדי כהונה in den Gewändern solchen Berufs und zwar בבגדי לבן, in den "weißen" Gewändern wie der כה׳׳ג im י׳׳כ-Dienste sich darstellen muss. Ist es doch eben טהרה, die "Reinheit" die von dem Gesetze, in dessen Dienst er steht, geforderte "Reinheit", die er zu veranschaulichen gehet. והוציא אותה: das ist der erste Lehrsatz, den er in symbolischer Tathandlung zu proklamieren hat: חוץ לשלש מחנות, außerhalb des מחנה שכינה, außerhalb des מחנה לויה, ja, außerhalb des מחנה ישראל hinaus hat er sie zu führen. Die פרה אדומה תמימה אשר אין בה מום אשר לא עלה עליה עול, die — nicht erst, wenn abgestorben und gebrochen — die eben in ihrer Lebensfülle und Ganzheit für den Dienst des Menschen bestimmte, von ihm aber kontrollos gelassene physisch-animalische Natur hat keine Stätte innerhalb des jüdisch-nationalen Volkslebens. Hinaus, aus dem ganzen Volkeskreis hinaus hat der priesterliche Gesetzesdiener die פרה וגו׳ אשר לא עלה עליה עול zu führen, und hat dieser im ganzen Volkskreise stättelosen Tiernatur erst aus hoher Ferne dem Eingange zum Gesetzesheiligtum gegenüber eine Stätte (גת) zu bereiten.

ושרף את הפרה AND ONE SHALL BURN THE COW, just as the calf was burnt (Exodus 32:20).

ושרף את הפרה AND ONE SHALL BURN THE COW, just as the calf was burnt (Exodus 32:20).

Und והוציא אותה sie allein ist hinauszuführen, kein anderes Tier mit ihr, das ja überhaupt nur konkrete Bedeutung haben könnte und die symbolische Auffassung des Ganzen stören würde, aber auch nicht zwei פרות אדומות sollen zugleich hinausgeführt werden. "Zwei" würden den Gedanken einer Vielheit hervorrufen und es soll doch eben die unkontrollierte tierische Menschennatur in der Einheit des allgemeinen zur Vergegenwärtigung kommen.

עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת CEDAR WOOD AND HYSSOP AND CRIMSON — These three species correspond to the three thousand men who fell by the edge of the sword on account of the golden calf. The cedar is the loftiest of all trees and the hyssop the lowliest of all — a symbol that the man of high position who displays pride and on that account falls into sin should make himself as lowly as the hyssop and the worm (תולעת), and he will then gain atonement.

עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת CEDAR WOOD AND HYSSOP AND CRIMSON — These three species correspond to the three thousand men who fell by the edge of the sword on account of the golden calf. The cedar is the loftiest of all trees and the hyssop the lowliest of all — a symbol that the man of high position who displays pride and on that account falls into sin should make himself as lowly as the hyssop and the worm (תולעת), and he will then gain atonement.

ושחט אותה das ist der zweite Lehrsatz, der durch den כהן in bedeutsamer Handlung proklamiert wird. Namens des Gesetzesheiligtums, als dessen Diener er dasteht und auf dessen Eingang er hinblickt, — כנגד פתח ההיכל siehe zu V. 4 — vollzieht er an der פרה אדומה תמימה אשר אין בה מום אשר לא עלה עליה עול an dem bis dahin "jochlos" gebliebenen "Tiere" in seiner "Lebensfülle und Ganzheit" den Akt der שחיטה, und spricht damit völlige Bewältigung durch den entschieden scharfen Akt der freien Willenstat als die einzige Bestimmung und die einzige Bedingung aus, unter welcher das im Menschenkreise sonst stättelose Tierische seine heilige Beziehung zu Gottes Heiligtum gewinnen kann und gewinnen soll. Es ist dies der einzige שחיטה-Akt, der nur durch einen כהן vollzogen werden muss, und unterscheidet sich damit wesentlich von allen שחיטות bei den Opfern im Heiligtum. Bei den קרבנות im Heiligtum ist die שחיטה nicht eine eigentliche עבודה. Sie ist nicht das Positive, das der die Gottesnähe Suchende im Heiligtum zu lernen und zu geloben hat. Sie bildet die negative Vorbedingung, das Sichselbstaufgeben, das Aufgeben alles Sonder- und Selbstseins, das der die Gottesnähe Suchende zuvor an sich selbst vollziehen muss, bevor sein Wesen (נפש) zur Hingebung an Gottes Gesetzesheiligtum priesterlich aufgenommen werden kann. Diese שחיטה ist daher כשר בור. Allein hier ist die שחיטה das eigentlich Wesentliche, das zum bezeugenden Ausdruck kommen soll. Es ist die freie Menschenherrschaft über das Physisch-Animalische, der gerade Gegensatz zu der פרה אשר לא עלה עליה עול, die damit zur Proklamierung kommen soll, dazu wird sie dem כהן übergeben, damit durch ihn eben dieser Gegensatz gelehrt werde. Diese שחיטה kann nur כשרה בכהן sein.

למשמרת [IT SHALL BE] KEPT [FOR THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL], just as the transgression of the calf is kept in remembrance for all future generations for punishment, for there is no visitation of Israel in which there is not something of the visitation of the sin caused by the calf, as it is said, (Exodus 32:34) “On the day when I visit I will visit [their sin upon them]” (cf. Rashi on that verse, and Sanhedrin 102a; Yerushalmi Taanit 14). And just as the calf rendered unclean everyone who busied himself with it (cf. Avodah Zarah 32b), so, too, does the cow make unclean all who busy themselves with it. And just as they (Israel) were purified by its dust (Exodus 22:20), similarly it states, (v. 17) “And for an unclean person shall they take of the dust of the burnt cow of purification, etc.”

למשמרת [IT SHALL BE] KEPT [FOR THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL], just as the transgression of the calf is kept in remembrance for all future generations for punishment, for there is no visitation of Israel in which there is not something of the visitation of the sin caused by the calf, as it is said, (Exodus 32:34) “On the day when I visit I will visit [their sin upon them]” (cf. Rashi on that verse, and Sanhedrin 102a; Yerushalmi Taanit 14). And just as the calf rendered unclean everyone who busied himself with it (cf. Avodah Zarah 32b), so, too, does the cow make unclean all who busy themselves with it. And just as they (Israel) were purified by its dust (Exodus 22:20), similarly it states, (v. 17) “And for an unclean person shall they take of the dust of the burnt cow of purification, etc.”

ולקח מדמה באצבעו, nicht בכלי שרת, überhaupt nicht בכלי, in die Hand fängt er vom Blut auf. Es ist ja nicht das Heiligtum, das die Menschen-נפש, es ist der Mensch, der die Tier-נפש in sein freies Machtbereich zu nehmen hat. Im Heiligtum ist es der Mensch, der ganze Mensch, der sich in seinem קרבן vor Gottes Angesicht seinem Heiligtum hingibt. In פרה אדומה ist es die "animalische" Seite des Menschen, die der "Mensch" im Hinblick auf Gottes Heiligtum in die Hand nimmt.

והזה אל נכח פני אהל מועד מדמה שבע פעמים und mit immer erneuter Energie — על כל הזיה טבילה (vergl. Wajikra 4, 6) — siebenmal, bis zur "Vollendung" bis zur Gewinnung der göttlichen "Bundesnähe", ihr die Richtung zum göttlichen Gesetzesideal hin erteilt. שחיטה und הזיה, das ist der vollendetste Ausdruck der sittlichen Freiheit, der Beherrschung und Leitung des physisch Sinnlichen in die Bahn des göttlichen Sittengesetzes.

את ערה ואת בשרה וגו׳ ישרף ושרף את הפרה: nur was von dem animalischen Wesen durch die Menschenenergie dem göttlichen Sittenideale zugewendet worden, das allein wird nicht Asche, das allein flüchtet das freie Menschenwesen auf dem Wege zum Sittenideale mit hinein in die ewige Bundesnähe Gottes. Alles andere verfällt dem Auflösungselemente und wird Aschenstaub, wie es von Erdenstaub geworden. Aber auch dieser Verwesungsgang des unfreien Sinnlichen hat nicht minder wie der Schritt zu Gott und Ewigkeit des freien Sittlichen seine einzige Beziehung zu Gott dem Einzigen, dem beides eignet, von dem beides stammt, dessen Welt- und Menschenzwecke beides dient, das Vergängliche wie das Ewige, das im Tod Erliegende wie das Unsterbliche, das Gebundene wie das Freie — wie שחיטה und הזיה so war auch גתה, war auch die Aschewerdungsstätte כנגד פתה ההיכל im Anblick und in der Richtung zur Gesetzesheiligtumspforte. Ein und derselbe Gott hat für ein und dasselbe Sittlichkeitsziel im Menschenwesen diese beiden Gegensätze vermählt, auf dass eben in dem Ringkampf gegen das physisch Zwingende sich die göttliche Macht der freien sittlichen Menschennatur bewähre und ihn das Verwesungsirdische selbst nicht von der Pforte zur sittlichen Freiheit und Ewigkeit entferne — שרפה חוץ לגתה פסולה. — Die Gewinnung der Gottesnähe auf Erden, der Aufbau des irdischen Gottesheiligtums durch freie Verwirklichung des göttlichen Gesetzes hat die Vereinigung beider zum Ziele; das mit dem Verwesungsleibe vermählte ewige Menschenwesen ist die ganze Voraussetzung des göttlichen Gesetzes.

ולקח עץ ארו ואזוב ושני תולעת והשליך אל תוך שריפת הפרה: "Ceder", das Mächtiggrößte, "Ysop", das Winzigschwächste der Pflanzen — mit "Wurm"blut gefärbte "Wolle", Wurm und Schaf, Wurm und Säugetier, Kleinstes und Größtes vom Tierreich, — ist nicht hiermit die ganze organische Welt repräsentiert? Und wenn der כהן diese Repräsentanten der ganzen physischen organischen Welt in dem Moment in den Brand der פרה hineinwirft, in welchem dieser Repräsentant des physisch-organischen Teils des Menschenwesens im Begriff ist, Asche zu werden, so spricht er eben damit aus, dass das auflösende Element, welchem nach göttlicher Bestimmung der physisch-animalische Leib des Menschen bis zur Aschewerdung anheimfällt, kein anderes ist, als das auch die ganze übrige physisch-organische Welt der Auflösung entgegenführt, und dass vom Menschenwesen nur das der Verwesung erliegt, was aus der gesamten organischen Natur in das Menschenwesen zur zeitlichen Vermählung mit dem Ewigen übergegangen.

Blicken wir einen Augenblick zurück, so vergegenwärtigt die פרה אדומה vor der שחיטה das bestimmungswidrig unbeherrscht gebliebene Tierische im Menschen. Mit שחיטה והזיה und dann שריפה tritt ein Gegensatz im Menschen hervor: die dem göttlich Sittlichen zugewandte und damit dem Aschengeschick enthoben bleibende נפש in ,דם שחיטה והזיה das dem Aschengeschicke verfallende ganze übrige leibliche Wesen des Menschen in שריפת עורה בשרה דמה ופרשה. Daher steht diese שרפת הפרה באש in einer ganz anderen Beziehung zu der vorhergehenden שחיטה והזיה als שריפת האיברים ואימורים der קרבנות auf dem אש על גבי המזבח. Diese, die שריפת האיברים והאימורים, ist eine Fortsetzung, Folge und Vollendung der שחיטה und der מתנות דם. Nachdem das seelische Wesen das Hinanstreben zu der oder das Beharren auf der Altarhöhe gefunden, gelangt auch alles von diesem נפש beherrschte Streben und Vollbringen des אימוריםund איברים-Leibes zu seiner Bestimmung: Nahrung des Göttlichen zu Gottes Wohlgefallen auf Erden zu werden. Da darf שחיטה und הקטרה nicht voneinander gerissen werden, in dem Positiven der הקטרה erhält erst die Negation der שחיטה ihre Vollendung, und das Positive der הקטרה in der vorangehenden שחיטה seine unveräußerliche Basis. Ein Opfertag muss daher beide umfassen, und was von den איברים nicht vor Ablauf des Opfertages, somit vor Anbruch des neuen Tages dem ואימורים Altarfeuer übergeben ist, wird פסול בלינה (siehe Wajikra 7, 18).

In einer ganz anderen Bedeutung stehen bei פרה die שחיטה und שריפה zu einander. Sowie das Feuer, dem die פרה בגתה, das Tier auf seiner Erdenstätte verfällt, nicht das אש דת על המזבח, sondern das Feuer der Elemente ist, unter dessen Herrschaft alles Organische zuletzt in Asche zurückkehrt, so ist auch die שריפה derselben keine Fortsetzung und Folge der שחיטה und הזיה כנגד פתה ההיכל, sondern hat ein anderes Objekt und geht ihnen zur Seite. Sie ist die Aschenzukunft des Leibes neben der Heiligtumszukunft der Seele. Es kann daher die שריפה auch erst an einem anderen Tage vorgenommen werden und פרה ist nicht פסולה בלינה.

אסיפה. Mit שריפת הפרה ist die Funktion des כהן vollendet. Namens des Gesetzesheiligtums und im Anblick desselben hat er das doppelte Element im Menschenwesen zur Anschauung gebracht: das durch die freie Menschenenergie bewältigte und mit sich zu Gott und dem göttlich freien Bereiche seines Gesetzes emporgerungene animalisch Menschliche in שחיטה und הזיה, und das sein zeitliches vergängliches Substrat bildende, den Weg des Aschentodes wandelnde animalisch Leibliche in שריפת הפרה. An der Volksgemeine, für deren Erkenntnis der ganze Akt vollzogen worden, ist es nun, in der Asche dieses Tierbrandes sich das Denkmal dieser Grundlehre von der Zwienatur des im Menschen zur Vereinigung gekommenen Himmlischen und Irdischen, Göttlichen und Animalischen, Ewigen und Vergänglichen zu wahren, auf dass es überall da zur Verwendung komme, wo mit der Ägide dieser Grundlehre dem טומאה-Wahn der Menschenunfreiheit rettend entgegenzutreten ist. ואסף איש טהור, das "Sammeln" dieser Asche geschieht daher durch einen Mann aus dem Volke. Selber rein, hat er dieses "Lehrmittel der Reinheit" außerhalb des שכינה-Kreises des Gesetzesheiligtums an einen absolut reinen Ort niederzulegen. Diese Anforderung der "Reinheit" für das Sammeln und Niederlegen der פרה-Asche ist von bedeutsamem Lehrinhalt. Obgleich an sich ja das dem Tode Erliegende vergegenwärtigend, ist doch die "Asche" — worauf wir noch zurückzukommen haben — an sich nicht durch Berührung טומאה-bringend und fordert für ihre Bewahrungsstätte die absoluteste Reinheit. Denn nicht das "Gestorbensein des Sterblichen" sondern der das Unsterbliche in das Sterben mit hineinziehende Wahngedanke birgt den verderblichen טומאה-Wahn, der das Ewiglebendige nicht scheidet von dem Leichenstoff der Verwesung und sich an der Leiche das unfreie Erliegen des ganzen Menschen demonstriert sein läßt und daraus die apodiktische Bejahung jenes staunenden Ausrufs schöpft: אך הבל כל אדם נצב סלה "der ganze Mensch ist nichts als Vergänglichkeit, wie aufrecht er auch stehe!" (Ps.39, 6). Nun ist ja aber von dem עפר שריפת הפרה das Gott und seinem Heiligtum verbleibende, dem Aschengang der Sterblichkeit nicht verfallende Göttliche, Ewige des Menschen in הזיה כנגד פתח ההיכל bereits ausgeschieden, und was in אפר פרה daliegt, ist das "Sterbliche" im Menschen, darum ואסף איש טהור את אפר הפרה והניח במקום טהור. Gleichwohl מחוץ למחנה, außerhalb des מחנה שכינה. Denn nur in Vermählung mit dem göttlich Menschlichen hat auch das animalisch Leibliche seine Bestimmungsstätte im Gottesheiligtum. Losgelöst vom Menschlichen, gehört das animalisch Leibliche der physischen Welt an, die ihr Reich außerhalb des dem "Menschen" geweihten Gottesheiligtums hat.

Es hat aber diese "Asche" die Bestimmung, wieder mit "lebendigem Wasser" (V. 17) verbunden zu werden und in dieser Verbindung den Gedanken des mit dem "Verwesungsstoff" zeitlich verbundenen "Lebendigewigen" allen denen nahezubringen, denen durch eine räumlich nahegekommene Leiche oder Leichenstoff dieser Gedanke des Lebendigewigen im Menschen getrübt worden, und die in dieser Trübung des reinen freien Menschengedankens von der Schwelle des Heiligtums und der Heiligtümer gewiesen waren. Der auf der Basis des Göttlichewigen, die Fähigkeit des sittlich freien Wollens im Menschen Bedingenden, stehenden ישראל-Gemeine bleibt sie למשמרת למי נדה, und nicht an sich, erst durch diesen Zweck, מי נדה zu werden und als solches den Wahn sittlicher Unfreiheit vom Menschen zu bannen, erhält die ganze פרה-Institution den Charakter: חטאת (siehe oben).

מלוי וקידוש: "Unmittelbar und unvermittelt" wird מים חיים ,lebendig quellendes" Wasser aus dem Quell oder der nicht unterbrochenen Quellströmung in ein "Gefäß" geschöpft, und es wird von der "Asche" darin gestreut. Bedeutsam tritt da (V. 17) die "Asche" unter dem Namen עפר auf. Die Asche, in welche der organische Leib zerfällt, ist nichts anderes, als der Stoff seines Bildungsanfangs: עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב (Bereschit 3, 19), und eben als solcher wird er hier dem Bewusstsein geboten. Was ist der Mensch? Aus dem Born des ewigen Lebens in irdische Gefäßumschränkung abgeschöpftes Ewiglebendiges. Dieses "Ewiglebendige", מים חיים, ist das Ursprüngliche, das wesenhafte Prius: מים חיים אל כלי — und ihm, diesem ewig Lebendigen, zugeführter "Erdenstaub", und zwar so, dass in dieser irdischen Gefäßumschränkung diese beiden Elemente nicht neben-, an- und aufeinander, sondern מעורב, das "Lebendige" mit dem "Irdischen" "gemischt", so gemischt erscheinen, dass das ursprüngliche Erste, das "Lebendige", das hinzugekommene Irdische überwinde, unter sich bringe, durch das Irdische hindurch, es in sich bergend "sichtbar" werde, — עליו מים חיים — es ist nicht Leben-haltiges Irdisches, sondern Irdisch-haltiges Leben, — עפר שריפת החטאת עליו מים חיים אל כלי: das ist der Mensch.

Und wenn die Mischung ihre Zeit gedauert, dann sinkt der Aschenstaub zu Boden, und das מים חיים tritt in seiner ursprünglichen Klarheit empor — וישב העפר אל הארץ כשהיה והרוח תשוב אל האלקים אשר נתנה (Pred. 12, 7; — vergl. Jeschurun Jahrgang l. פרשת פרה).

In dem Momente, in welchem die "Asche" in das מים חיים gestreut ist, wird dieses מי חטאת ein die Lehre der Nichtsündigensfähigkeit vermittelndes Medium und dieser Mischungsakt heißt "Heiligung" קידוש.

Wie מי סוטה der Wahrheit den Ausdruck gibt: obgleich עפר, obgleich mit organisch irdischen Trieben ausgestattet, doch מים קדושים, doch jeder sittlichen Lebensheiligung fähig und mächtig, so ist מי חטאת Ausdruck der Wahrheit, obgleich אפר, obgleich Aschenstaub, doch מים חיים, doch ewiges Leben! (siehe oben Kap. 5, 17).

הזיה בשלישי ושביעי. Wie aber in dem מי חטאת beides, das organisch Stoffliche und das göttlich Ewige in, wenngleich zeitlicher, doch inniger Verbindung erscheint und eben in dieser Verbindung den Gedanken "Mensch" zum Ausdruck bringt, so ist auch die הזיה, welche diesen reinen Menschenbegriff aus der Trübung wieder zur Klarheit des Bewusstseins heben soll, eine doppelte, diesen beiden Elementen des Menschenwesens geweihte. Das Bewusstsein der sittlichen Freiheit, somit des Vermögens, sich frei mit seinem ganzen Wesen dem göttlichen Gesetze unterzuordnen, hat sowohl für die Sphäre des stofflich Leiblichen, als für das Bereich des geistig Göttlichen die unwandelbare Basis zu bilden. Das physische Genuss- und Geschlechtsleben, das dem organisch Leiblichen angehört, wie nicht minder das Leben des Denkens, Wollens und Vollbringens, in welchem sich das geistig Göttliche des Menschen vollzieht, beide bedürfen der freien Hingebung an die Direktive der Gotteslehre und des Gottesgesetzes. Bevor daher der טמא מת nach zurückgelegter טומאה-Periode durch טבילה mit seinem ganzen Wesen wieder zur טהרה erstehen kann, ist sowohl der organisch leiblichen, als der geistig göttlichen Seite des Menschenwesens die Grundlehre der sittlichen Freiheit durch הזיה nahe zu bringen. Es geschieht die הזיה am dritten und wird wiederholt am siebten Tage. Wir haben bereits zum Bereschit 1, 11-13 darauf hingewiesen, wie mit dem dritten Schöpfungstage die physisch-organische Welt mit dem Gepräge des göttlichen למינו-Gesetzes ins Leben trat, und daher der dritte Tag die Signatur des sich dem Gottesgesetze unterordnenden physisch-organischen Lebens ebenso tragen könne, wie der siebte Tag, als der Tag der Unterordnung des gottebenbildlichen Menschen mit seinem gottgleichen weltbeherrschenden Tatenleben unter die Gottesherrschaft dasteht, und daher die הזיה für den Menschen als physisch-organisches Wesen dem dritten, sowie die הזיה für den Menschen als göttlich-geistiges Wesen der Tat dem siebten Tage, und zwar so überwiesen ist, dass, wann immer auch später die erste הזיה geschehe, der Tag der ersten הזיה immer als der dritte begriffen werde, und erst vier Tage später die zweite als an dem siebten geschehen könne. Dass aber bei der הזיה mit מי חטאת auf die Schöpfung zurückgeblickt und daraus den הזיה-Tagen der Charakter verliehen sein dürfte, möchte wohl um so weniger ferne liegen, als — wie wir erkannt zu haben glauben — dies עפר ועליו מים חיים אל כלי des מי חטאת eben den Menschen in seinem Schöpfungsentstehen vergegenwärtigt.

Es bereitet also die erste הזיה am dritten Tage die physisch-leibliche und sodann die zweite am siebten Tage die geistig-göttliche Reinheit des Menschenwesens vor. Bevor sodann der ganze Mensch oder das Menschliche in seiner Ganzheit zur vollen Reinheit wieder erstehen kann — הזיה וטבילה על אדם וכלים. —

Es bleiben uns noch einige allgemeine gesetzliche Bestimmungen zu betrachten übrig, die die פרה-Institution im Ganzen, zum Teil auch als Verhältnis ihrer einzelnen Teile zu einander, tief charakterisieren. פ׳׳ג der תוספתא פרה lautet die Zusammenstellung: כל מעשיה ביום חוץ מאסיפת האפר והמילוי והקידוש כל מעשיה בכהנים חוץ מאסיפת האפר והמילוי והקידוש והזיה וכל מעשיה מלאכה פוסלת חוץ מאסיפה והזיה.

ביום: Außer dem Sammeln der Asche, dem Wasserfüllen und dem Aschehineintun müssen alle פרה-Akte am Tage vollzogen werden. Wir wissen bereits, dass alle Handlungen, welche im Gegensatze zu dem Machtgebiete der unfreien physischen Welt, als in den Kreis des bewusstvoll wachen, freien sittlichen Menschenlebens hinein gehörig zu bezeichnen sind, sich auf die Tageszeit beschränken (siehe Jeschurun, Jahrg. IV, S. 621 f.). Wir begreifen daher diese Forderung für alle lehrenden Hauptakte der פרה-Institution. מלוי ,אסיפה und קידוש sind jedoch nur herstellende Hilfshandlungen, für welche die Zeit gleichgültig sein darf. Wenn nach einer Lesart im ספרי (siehe zu V. 3) auch das Verbrennen, שריפה, nachts geschehen dürfte, so wäre dies für unsere Auffassung sehr charakteristisch. Glauben wir doch in diesem "in Asche verwandeln" der ganzen פרה, mit Ausnahme des dem Heiligtume zugesprengten Blutes, nur den elementaren Verwesungsgang des der physischen Natur angehörigen Stofflichen zu erkennen, ein Vorgang, dem eben durch Nichtbeschränkung auf die Zeit des Tages seine Bedeutung innerhalb der physischen Elementarwelt um so prägnanter aufgedrückt wäre.

כהן: Wie bereits zu V. 9 bemerkt, ist mit שריפה ,הזיה ,שחיטה, die namens des Gesetzesheiligtums zu vollziehende Proklamierung des Grundaxioms der sittlichen Freiheit, der Zweiteilung des einheitlichen Menschenwesens in dem Gott und seinem Heiligtum angehörigen Ewigen, und dem der elementaren Verwesung anheimfallenden Stofflichen vollendet, alle weiteren Handlungen: הזיה ,קידוש ,מלוי ,אסיפה können daher durch einen Nichtkohen vollzogen werden.

מלאכה: Nicht so an der Oberfläche liegt die Bedeutung des פסול מלאכה und wird noch die Erkenntnis dadurch erschwert, dass, wie V. 17 bemerkt, über einige Modalitäten dieser gesetzlichen Bestimmung Zweifel obwalten, und es insbesondere nicht entschieden ist, ob der פסול מלאכה mit dem היסח הדעת identisch ist oder uns damit zwei verschiedene Momente vorliegen. Dieses letztere angenommen, hätten wir die Bestimmung: alle Handlungen der פרה-Institution — mit Ausnahme der אסיפה und הזיה (siehe jedoch zu V. 3) — fordern die intensivste Richtung des Geistes auf die vorzunehmende Handlung, auch nur eine momentane Abwendung des geistigen Sinnes, היסח הדעת, würde die Richtigkeit des ganzen Aktes stören. Und ebenso: während des Vollzugs aller Handlungen der פרה-Institution — mit Ausnahme der אסיפה und הזיה — darf von dem Vollziehenden gleichzeitig keine andere מלאכה vollzogen werden. Diese bei Vollzug der פרה-Handlungen wesentlich bedingende Geistesintension wird im Texte durch ושחט אתה לפניו :לפניו durch ושרף את הפרה לעיניו :לעיניו, und durch למשמרת נשמירה למי נדה ausgedrückt. Es dürfte damit die Intelligenz in dreifacher Tätigkeit bezeichnet sein: die Willensabsicht, das von ihm gewollte Ziel, das Objekt seiner Sinnesrichtung, לפניו, — die Wahrnehmung, לעיניו, — das Festhalten im Bewusstsein, שמירה. Erwägen wir, dass שחיטה und הזיה das göttlich Freie des Menschenwesens vergegenwärtigt, das sich in Selbstbeherrschung und Hingebung an das göttliche Ziel betätigt; שריפה hingegen den Gang der Verwesung, dem nur das stofflich Unfreie verfällt, מלוי וקידוש endlich die normale Verbindung dieser beiden gegensätzlichen Elemente zu dem einheitlichen bestimmungsheiligen Menschenwesen: so begreifen wir die Verteilung dieser Modalitäten der Intelligenz auf diese verschiedenen Funktionen. Die sittlich-freie שחיטה והזיה- Tätigkeit fordert פנים: die Richtung der geistigen Gesamtenergie auf ein zu vollendendes Ziel. Der Stoffverfall der שריפה nur objektive Wahrnehmung: עינים. Die normale מלוי וקידוש, die Vereinigung dieser beiden Gegensätze im reinen Menschen ist aber eben das, was im Bewusstsein festgehalten und präsent bleiben soll: שמירה. Erwägen wir jedoch, dass hier דעת, die Intelligenztätigkeit nicht nur מצוה, sondern מעכב ist, und היסח הדעת, das auch nur momentane Unterbrechen derselben die Richtigkeit des ganzen Aktes aufhebt: so dürfte "דעת", "Intelligenz", vielmehr als ein integrierender Teil des zum Ausdruck gelangenden Grundgedankens zu begreifen sein, und wagen wir die Vermutung, dass die dabei freibetätigte Menschenintelligenz in allen ihren Energien auf die wollend-vollbringende, allgegenwärtig-schauende, erhaltend-überwachende, allerhöchste Intelligenz hinweisen soll, deren bewusstes Werk und Vorsehungsobjekt so der freie Gottesodem im Menschen, wie die stofflich organische Natur der physischen Welt und die Vermählung beider im Menschen ist, und als deren irdisches Ankündigungsecho eben der in der Menschenintelligenz sich manifestierende ebenbildliche Nachhall zu begreifen ist. Aus diesem Gesichtspunkte begriffe sich dann um so mehr auch die Auffassung des פסול מלאכה als begrifflich von פסול היסח הדעת geschiedenes Moment. Durch die gleichzeitige Vornahme einer anderen מלאכה fiele nämlich, wie wir meinen, der Schein des "Zufälligen" auf den Akt der פרה-Institution, und es soll eben zum Ausdruck kommen, dass nicht היסה הדעת und nicht מלאכה אחרת, nicht das "Unbewusste" und nicht das השנחה "Zufällige", dass das höchste Bewusstsein und die entschiedenste Absichtlichkeit die ist, unter deren Denken und Wollen das Menschen- und Weltdasein erblüht. Die הזיה selbst wird nicht פסול durch מלאכה אחרת. Sie muss mit Absicht auf den der טהרה bedürftigen Gegenstand gerichtet werden, allein dieser selbst braucht im Momente des Vollzugs dessen nicht bewusst zu sein, und der die הזיה Vollziehende durfte im Momente des Vollzugs selbst noch mit anderem beschäftigt sein. Da die הזיה des מים חיים ועפר keines כהן bedarf, sondern von jedem vollsinnigen Menschen, und zwar, wie bemerkt, selbst während gleichzeitiger anderer Beschäftigung vorgenommen werden kann, so dürfte dieses von ihm selbst nebenher auf den טהרה-Bedürftigen gerichtete מים חיים ועפר nichts als das Normallebendige vergegenwärtigen, wie es aus der Tätigkeit eines jeden vollsinnigen Menschen jedem entgegenstrahlt, hinsichtlich dessen der klüftend spezifische Unterschied zwischen der Leiche und dem beseelten Menschenleib zum Bewusstsein gebracht werden soll. Zu ermitteln bliebe das Motiv, das für die הזיה, für welche das Gesetz doch selbst קטן befähigt, Frauen ausschließt, während diese doch קידוש vollziehen können, wo קטן ausgeschlossen ist (siehe unten).

טומאה. Von tiefster Bedeutsamkeit müssen aber die bei der פרה-Institution in den verschiedenen Phasen ihres Vollzugs hervortretenden eigentümlichen טומאה-Bestimmungen sein, die sich in folgenden Sätzen zusammenfassen: כל העוסקים בפרה מתחלה עד סוף מטמאין בגדים, alle die bei dem Vollzug der פרה von Anfang bis zu Ende, also bei der אסיפת האפר ,השלכת עץ ארז ,שריפה ,הזיה ,שחיטה tätig sind, werden טמא in dem Grade, dass sie auch alle כלים, die sie während dieser Tätigkeit berühren, טמא machen, ganz so wie נושא נבלה. (Wajikra 11, 25), die Berührung aber der פרה und der Asche macht nicht טמא (Verse 7, 8 u. 10).

Dem gegenüber werden כל העוסקים במלוי וקידוש והזיה, alle die mit dem Schöpfen und Aschemischen zum הזיה-Zweck tätig sind, und so auch die die הזיה selbst vollziehen, nicht ,טמא während die Berührung des ,מי חטאת nicht zum Zwecke, טמא macht, und zwar wenn אין בה כדי הזיה nur במגע, wenn יש בה כדי הזיה selbst במשא לטמא בגדים.

Die Beschäftigung mit dem Vollzug der פרה, sowie die Berührung der מי חטאת, bringt nur so lange טומאה als sie כשרים sind, sobald die פרה oder das מי חטאת פסוליםgeworden, werden dort die sich Beschäftigenden und hier die Berührenden nicht .טמא

Die Berührung des Wassers und der Asche vor ihrer Mischung bringt keine טומאה, erst wenn sie durch Mischung מקודשים geworden, wird man durch ihre Berührung außer dem הזיה-Zwecke טמא.

Diese letzte Bestimmung, dass מזה מי חטאת טהור bleibe, נוגע ונושא מי חטאת außer zum הזיה-Zwecke טמא werde, dürfte den Schlüssel zum Ganzen bieten. Die ganze פרה-Institution, wie sie sich ja auch in ihrem letzten Produkt, dem מים חיים ועפר des מי חטאת ausspricht, bringt das Zweigestaltige der die Menschen verbindenden Gegensätze zum Bewusstsein: das dem Leben Verbleibende und das dem Menschentode Verfallende. Das Bewusstsein dieses Gegensatzes ist von rettender Wichtigkeit für die Wiederbelebung des Bewusstseins des sittlichen Freiheitsvermögens, wo dies durch Berührung mit einem verstorbenen Menschenleibe getrübt worden. Da ist durch die Leichentatsache die eine Seite dieses Gegensatzes, das sterbende Unfreie im Menschen demonstriert, und es ist rettende Arznei, in dem מי חטאת ihr mit dem עפר-haltigen מים חיים die andere Seite, das ewig Freie im Menschen, als nicht minder gewisse Tatsache entgegen zu bringen. Was aber für das getrübte Bewusstsein Arznei ist, das ist für das ungetrübte reine das Gegenteil. Das ungetrübte normale reine Menschensein vollzieht sich nicht in dem Bewusstsein dieses Gegensatzes. In dem ungetrübten, normalen, reinen Lebensmoment ist dieser Gegensatz überhaupt aufgehoben, soll er aufgehoben sein, soll nicht der Gedanke des Todes neben dem Gedanken des Lebens lauern, der Gedanke des Lebens neben dem Gedanken des Todes pulsieren, sollen Todesgefühle, Leichengedanken überhaupt nicht vorhanden sein, — der normale, reine ungetrübte Menschenpuls ist ganz Leben; mit sich hinauf in das Bereich des sittlich Ewigen hebt der Gottesgeist im Menschen das von ihm beseelte und beherrschte Stoffliche und läßt es teilnehmen an der Ewigkeit, die in jedem reinen Lebensmomente des Menschen liegt; nicht zwiespaltig, einheitlich fühlt sich der reine Mensch, und das Bewusstwerden des Gegensatzes ist selbst eine Trübung — מי חטאת, ist Arznei, nicht Brot. So gewiß daher das vom Gedankenanhauch einer Leiche geistig Angekränkelte durch Entgegenbringen des staubgemischten מים חיים im מי חטאת der geistig sittlichen Gesundung entgegengeführt wird, das מי חטאת daher, zu solchem Zwecke gehandhabt, ein Medium der טהרה ist, und טהור lässt: so gewiss bringt jede sonstige Berührung und Handhabung des מי חטאת dem normalen ungetrübten, von keinem Leichengedanken angekränkelten, einheitlich Reinen den Anhauch des zwiespaltigen מים חיים- und עפר-Gedankens und macht ihn טמא. Bewirkt doch ohnehin die הזיה mit dem מים חיים ועפר des מי חטאת nicht unmittelbar טהרה, der טמא ist nach der הזיה noch טמא wie er war. Nur Vorbereitung zur טהרה ist der הזיה-Gedanke, der die gegensätzlichen Elemente im Menschenwesen in die rechte Stellung zu einander bringt, der zum Menschen spricht: Obgleich du עפר bist und אפר wirst, ist doch מים חיים das eigenste unverlierbarste Wesen deines Wesens. טהור, rein wird er nur, wenn er sodann mit seinem "ganzen" Wesen "einheitlich" in das Element der Reinheit niedertaucht und mit dem Untergang der Sonne auch alle Leichengedanken für ihn zurückliegen, und er einen neuen frischen, von keinem Verwesungsgedanken angehauchten reinen Tag frei von aller zwiespaltigen Trübung antritt.

Ganz denselben Gedanken spricht die טומאה-Bestimmung für alle die an dem Vollzuge des פרה-Aktes Beteiligten aus. Dieser Akt mit seiner שחיטה והזיה einerseits und שריפה ואסיפה andererseits spricht ja eben in größter Augenfälligkeit diesen Gegensatz des ewig-freien und vergänglich-gebundenen Elementes im Menschenwesen aus. Es spricht ihn aus ohne vorliegende Veranlassung als allgemeinstes Bedürfnis, und führt eben damit alle die עוסקים בפרה מתחלה ועד סוף erst ganz eigentlich in den Gedanken dieser Gegensätzlichkeit ein, unterbricht damit ihr einheitliches Reinheitsbewusstsein, macht sie טמא. Nicht das Gegensätzliche des פרה אדומה-Gedankens ist das Normale, in welchem das Heiligtum und seine Heiligtümer die Lösung ihrer Aufgabe erwarten. Todesbetrachtungen wohnen nicht auf ihrer Schwelle. Bevor die an dem פרה אדומהAkte sich Beteiligenden dem Heiligtume und den Heiligtümern sich wieder nahen, haben sie die durch den Akt, den sie mit vollziehen, geweckten gegensätzlichen Gedanken hinter sich zu lassen und müssen erst in טבילה und הערב שמש die Einheitlichkeit des reinen Lebensgedankens wieder gewonnen haben.

Dass פרה und מי חטאת, sobald sie פסולים geworden, nicht mehr מטמא sind, erklärt sich von selbst. Mit dem פסול hört die Symbolik ihrer Bedeutung auf, sie treten in ihren konkreten Charakter zurück und können nicht mehr טומאה bringen, als andere Tierstoffe und Wasser in ihren konkreten Zuständen.

Ebenso ist es selbstverständlich, dass אפר allein ebenso sehr wie מים חיים allein, טהורים sind und den Berührenden טהור lassen. Der Verwesungsgang alles organisch Stofflichen an sich ist ja ein durchaus wahrer, reiner Gedanke, dem kein Anhauch von טומאה-Wahn innewohnt. Erst als gegensätzlicher Mischungsbestandteil zum מים חיים im Menschenwesen liegt in ihm die Gefahr der טומאה-Verirrung, die ob des אפר־עפר im Menschenwesen das מים חיים in ihm völlig vergisst, oder dies doch also vom עפר־ אפר überwuchert sein lässt, dass ihm das חי im Menschen nicht das Prius, die eigentliche Substanz, sondern nur als Akzidenz des אפר־עפר übrig bleibt, mit dem עפר entsteht und mit dem אפר eingesargt wird und so kein Raum ist innerhalb des Staubmenschen für das göttlich freie Ewige. Darum nicht die Berührung von מי מלוי, von dem geschöpften מים חיים, auch nicht die Berührung von אפר פרה, von der פרה-Asche, macht טמא; erst wenn die Asche ins Wasser gestreut und darin gemischt und beides zusammen מי חטאת zur הזיה geworden, erst dann bringt die Berührung außer zum הזיה-Zwecke טומאה.

Endlich die die ganze פרה-Institution beherrschende Halacha: טבול יום כשר בפרה. Der טהרה-Zustand, den das Gesetz von allen bei dem Vollzuge des פרה-Aktes Beschäftigten, sowie von dem die הזיה Vollziehenden fordert, ist nur der des untersten טהרה-Grades, der mit der טבילה erreicht wird, bevor הערב שמש die טהרה vollendet. Diese Halacha, welche die Tradition leugnende Saduzäer aufs heftigste bestritten, wurde ihnen gegenüber in möglichster Öffentlichkeit bei jedem Vollzuge der פרה aufs entschiedenste dergestalt aufrecht erhalten, dass vor allem Volke auf dem Ölberge der fungierende כהן vor Beginn seiner Funktion absichtlich durch Berührung טמא gemacht wurde, so dass er erst טבילה vornehmen musste und nur als טבול יום seine Funktion bei der פרה antreten konnte. Damit nun nicht durch diese öffentlich absichtliche Versetzung des fungierenden כהן in einen durch טבילה aufzuhebenden טומאה-Zustand die ganze Auffassung des פרה-Aktes als טהרה-Institution wesentlich leide und in deren Gegenteil entstellt werden könnte, — כי היכא דלא לזלזלו בה — wurden die großartigsten opfervollsten Vorkehrungen in größter Öffentlichkeit veranstaltet, um von dem fungierenden טומאת מת Priester vorbereitend auch nur die entfernteste zweifelhafteste Möglichkeit einer ferne zu halten und dem Ganzen den Charakter der absolutesten טהרה zu vindizieren. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns die Großartigkeit dieser טהרה-Veranstaltungen — so waren z. B. zu diesem Behufe abgeschlossene Höfe auf unterwölbten Felsen gebaut, um jede Möglichkeit einer aus der Tiefe aufsteigenden טומאה רצוצה (siehe oben) zu beseitigen. Dort ließ man Frauen, die nahe daran waren, Mütter zu werden, ihre Geburt abwarten, und Knaben, die sie dort geboren, dort bis zum siebten, achten Jahre heranerziehen, damit diese nie von טומאה-berührten Knaben הזיות an den sich für die פרהFunktion vorbereitenden כהן vollziehen könnten. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns die Großartigkeit dieser טהרה-Veranstaltungen und sagen wir uns dann, dass sie alle nur ins Leben gerufen wurden, damit man, nachdem man dem zur פרה-Funktion berufenen כהן sieben Tage lang mit äußerster Sorgfalt den möglichst absoluten Charakter der טהרה vermittelt, dann ihn im Momente des Vollzugs absichtlich in Berührung mit טומאה bringt, damit er טבילה-bedürftig werde, und nach vollzogener טבילה nur als טבול יום den פרה-Akt vollziehe, — und alles dies להוציא מלבן של צדוקים, um der saduzäischen Behauptung entgegenzutreten, dass nur במעורבי שמש, nur durch vollendete טהורים der פרה-Akt zu vollziehen sei: so, dünkt uns, dürfte dem Satz: טבול יום כשר בפרה eine so tiefe Bedeutung innewohnen müssen, dass dessen öffentliche Proklamierung so großartiger nationaler Veranstaltungen wert gehalten werden durfte.

Fassen wir diesen Satz ins Auge, so liegt ihm das Axiom zu Grunde, dass der Begriff טהור nicht erst bei vollendeter טהרה, sondern bereits im allerersten Stadium den vollen Gegensatz zum טמא bilde. Nach saduzäischer Prätension könne unter והזה הטהור על הטמא nur der vollendete טהור verstanden sein. Die Überlieferung der חכמים lehrt aber schon im טבול יום den טהור im Gegensatz zum טמא gegeben. Nach der saduzäischen Prätension ist zwischen טבול יום und טמא nur ein quantitativer Gradunterschied und der spezifische Artunterschied beginnt erst mit הערב שמש. Nach der Überlieferung der Weisen ist schon mit טבול יום der volle spezifische Artunterschied von טמא gegeben, und zwischen טבול יום und הערב שמש liegt nur ein quantitativer Gradunterschied der טהרה. Dies in die Gedankensphäre der durch die פרה-Institution zu proklamierenden Grundlehren der sittlichen Freiheit übertragen, ergibt nach saduzäischem Hochmut den Satz: erst der geistig und sittlich Vollkommene ist frei und unsterblich, alles auf niederer Stufe gehört noch dem vergänglichen Reiche physischer Gebundenheit an. Die Lehre der Weisen aber spricht: Selbst auf niedrigster Stufe ist in jedem Menschen das göttlich Freie, das ihn tief von allem physisch Vergänglichen scheidet und ihn der sittlichen Freiheit und des ewigen Lebens teilhaftig macht. Nur Stufenunterschiede zählen zwischen ihm und der Höhe der geistig und sittlich Vollkommensten. Nach saduzäischer Irrlehre ist Unsterblichkeit und Ewigkeit ein Ideal, das erst durch geistige und sittliche Vollkommenheit zu erringen wäre, somit — vielleicht — keinem Menschen erreichbar winkt. Nach der Weisheit der Weisen ist Unsterblichkeit und Ewigkeit ein dem Wesen des Menschen als Menschen innewohnendes Angebinde, das Gott einem jedem bei seinem Eintritt ins Hiersein mitgibt, auf dass es ihn im Lande der gebundenen Vergänglichkeit die Wege der Freiheit zu wandeln befähige, die zur Heimkehr in die Ewigkeit in die höhere Vollendung leiten. — Liegt der Gedanke sehr ferne, dass die saduzäische Opposition mit ihrem במעורבי שמש היתה נעשית in tiefem Zusammenhange mit ihrer Opposition gegen die עולם הבא-Lehre derselben Weisen stehe?

Sehr sind wir geneigt zu glauben, dass die bereits bemerkte Zulässigkeit eines Knaben, ja eines Kindes zur הזיה (siehe Para 12, 10) mit dieser Zulässigkeit eines טבול יום zusammenhängt. Es ist dieselbe Weisheit, die in dem טבול יום schon den טהור, in dem Reinheitsanfang schon den "Reinen", erblickt, die auch im "Kinde" schon den künftigen "Mann" erblicken lässt, und selbst einen קטן טבול יום befähigt, den tiefkluftenden Unterschied des Lebens vom Tode, des "Menschen" von der Leiche zu demonstrieren, — derselbe Begriff, in welchem die Zulässigkeit des טבול יום niedergelegt ist, lehrt auch die Zulässigkeit des קטן, sowie durch והזה הטהור על הטמא der Begriff טהור für פרה zu טבול יום erweitert ist, so lehrt auch Joma 43a: ולקח אזוב וטבל במים איש טהור איש ולא אשה טהור להכשיר את הקטן.

Dass אשה כשרה לקידוש ופסולה להזיה dürfte vielleicht damit im Zusammenhange stehen, dass קידוש בשר בלילה ist, הזיה jedoch auf die Zeit des Tages beschränkt, somit eine מצות עשה ist, שהזמן גרמה. Indem das Gesetz הזיה auf die Tageszeit beschränkt, reiht es dieselbe dem Kreise derjenigen Handlungen ein, die als Bekundungen von Wahrheiten zu begreifen sind, auf welchen das jüdische Gesamtleben beruht, deren Vertretung in jedem Geschlechte und Überlieferung von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht zum Mannesberufe in Israel gehört. Indem es aber zu הזיה schon die "künftigen Männer" zulässt, spricht sich eben die allgemeinste Bedeutsamkeit der Grundwahrheit aller jüdischen Grundwahrheiten aus, die durch הזיה במי חטאת zum Ausdruck gelangen soll und in deren Anschauungskreis der jüdische Knabe als künftiger Mann der jüdischen Wahrheit nicht frühe genug eingeführt werden kann. Unseres Wissens ist הזיה במי חטאת der durchaus einzige Fall, in welchem das Gesetz קטנים zur Vollziehung einer מצוה zulässt und נשים ausschließt. —

That is that He also commanded us to bring a variable burnt-sacrifice for certain specific sins. And the sins for which one is liable for this sacrifice are impurification of the Temple and its sanctified objects; an oath of speech; and an oath of testimony. And that is one who is impure from one of the primary sources of impurity - as we set out in the introduction to the Order of Purities (Commentary on the Mishnah) - and entered the Temple or ate consecrated [food] inadvertently; and that is impurification of the Temple and its consecrated objects. Or that he swore falsely, as with an oath of speech that he inadvertently transgressed; or if he swore falsely with an oath of testimony - whether inadvertently or volitionally. Behold for any of these actions, he must bring a sacrifice that is called a variable burnt-offering. And that is His saying, "And if a person sin, and hear the voice of adjuration [... Or when a person touches any unclean thing...] and it be hid from him [and he come to know of it, and be guilty]. Or if a person swear, speaking with his lips [...] And it shall be, when he shall be guilty [...]. And he shall bring his guilt offering [...]. But if his means do not suffice" (Leviticus 5:1-7). And for this reason is it called a variable burnt-offering - because it does not remain one type; but rather he will once bring this type, and another time that type. Everything is according to what the means of the sinner, who is obligated to offer the sacrifice, suffice. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot and in Shevuot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 10.)

That is that He commanded us to administer [the laws of] the impurity of a corpse. And this commandment includes all of the regulations of the impurity of a corpse. (See Parashat Chukat; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse 1-25.)

That is that He commanded us and instructed us [to administer] the laws of purification water, about which they said that it renders impure in one way and purifies in another way - as is explained in the analysis of this commandment. And you should know that these thirteen types of impurities, the counting of which preceded this - being the impurities of a carcass; of creeping animals; of foods and drinks; of a menstruant woman; of a woman after childbirth; of tsaraat of a person; [of tsaraat of garments;] of tsaraat of houses; of a zav; of a zavah; of semen; of a corpse; and of purifying waters - and the purification of each one of them, is written in the Torah in many verses and with many laws and stipulations, as are written in Parashat Shemini, Parashat Tazria and Metzora and in Parashat Parah. And these four sections completely include all of these impurities. Moreover, the Order of Tahorot includes all of the laws of all of these types and the analysis of each type. Tractates Tahorot, Makhshirin and Oktzin - these three tractates only contain the impurity of food and that which is attached to [this topic], and those laws from other types of impurities the mention of which is relevant to it. However they only appear contingently. And likewise Tractate Niddah includes all the laws of [the impurities of a menstruant woman and a woman after childbirth. And some of the laws of a woman after childbirth are also in Tractate Keritot. And in Tractate Negaim are the laws of the blemishes of people, garments and houses. And Tractate Zavim includes the laws of] of a zav, a zavah and of semen. And Tractate Oholot contains the laws of the impurity of a carcass. And Tractate Parah includes the purifying waters, to render impure and to purify. But no tractate was dedicated to the impurity of carcasses or the impurity of creeping animals; however their laws are scattered in many places in this order, and the majority are in Tractates Kelim and Tahorot. And likewise did they speak about many questions about these topics in Tractate Eduyot. And we have already explained this order in its entirety (in the Commentary on the Mishnah) - meaning the Order of Tahorot. It is a commentary that does not require any other book with it for any topic related to impurity. (See Parashat Chukat; Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer 1-15.)