Midrash sur Les Nombres 19:1

This is the ordinance of the Torah - (Psalms 12:6) The sayings of G-d are pure (purify). R. Hanan Ben Pazzi elucidated this verse [of psalms with the parsha of Parah] Parah- which has seven seven sevens; seven cows, seven fires, seven sprinkling, seven washes, seven unclean, seven pure, seven priests. And if someone tells you they are five, tell him: Moses and Aaron are included, as it is said: And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the Torah:

(Bamidbar 19:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Aaron and to Moses saying: This is the statute of the Torah, which the L-rd has commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and let them take unto you a red heifer, complete, which does not have a blemish, upon which a yoke has not come." There are sections (of the Torah), which are general in the beginning and particular at the end, and (others), which are particular in the beginning and general at the end: (Shemot 19:3) "Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the children of Israel" — particular; (Ibid. 6) "These are the things, etc." — general. (Ibid. 12:43) "This is the statute of the Pesach" — general; (Ibid.) "Every stranger shall not eat of it" — particular. (Bamidbar 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — general; (Ibid.) "and let them take for you a red heifer, complete" — particular. General-Particular. (The rule is:) There exists in the general only what is found in the particular. R. Eliezer says: It is written here "statute" and (relative to the Yom Kippur service, Vayikra 16:34) "statute." Just as there, (the Cohein ministers) in the white vestments; here, too, in the white vestments. R. Yochanan b. Zakkai was asked by his disciples: In which vestments was the red heifer processed? He: In the golden vestments. They: But did our master not teach us (that it was processed) in the white vestments? He: If I have forgotten what my eyes have seen and what my hands have ministered, how much more so, what I have taught! And why all this? To strengthen the disciples (in application to their learning). Others say: It was Hillel the Elder, but (not being a Cohein), he could not have said "what my hands have ministered." "and let them take": from the Temple treasury. "unto you": that you be appointed over it. And just as Moses was appointed over it, so, was Aaron. Similarly, in respect to the oil for lighting, (Shemot 21:20) "and let them take unto you" — that you be appointed over it. "a red heifer (parah)": R. Eliezer says: "eglah" signifies of the first year; "parah" signifies of the second year. The sages say: "eglah" — of the second year; "parah" — of the third or fourth year. R. Meir says: One of the fifth year, too, is valid. An old one is valid, but it is not waited for lest it sprout black hairs and become unfit. "parah": I understand black or white; it is, therefore, written "red." "whole": in redness or in (absence of) blemishes? "which does not have a blemish" accounts for blemishes. How, then, am I to understand "whole"? That it be "whole" in redness. "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work (having been done with them), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! — No, this may be true of offerings, which must be processed (by the Cohein) in a state of cleanliness, wherefore a blemish invalidates them, as opposed to the heifer, which may be processed in a state of tumah (i.e., when the Cohein is a tvul yom), wherefore a blemish would not invalidate it. (So that the verse is needed to tell us otherwise.) — (No,) this is refuted by (the instance of) the Paschal lamb, which though it may be processed in a state of tumah, a blemish invalidates it, and this would indicate of the heifer that even though it is processed in tumah, a blemish invalidates it. (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) — No, this may be true of the Paschal lamb, which must be sacrificed at a fixed time, wherefore it is invalidated by a blemish, as opposed to the heifer, which, not having a fixed time (for its processing), should not be invalidated by a blemish. It must, therefore, (to tell us otherwise) be written "which does not have a blemish." Issi b. Akiva says: "which does not have a blemish": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by black or white (hairs), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by black or white, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish"! If I know this a fortiori, why need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? To exclude (from invalidation by a blemish) the heifer of the broken neck (eglah arufah [viz. Devarim 21:4]). For it would follow (if not for this verse) that blemishes should invalidate the eglah arufah, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work, are invalidated by a blemish, then eglah arufah, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! It is, therefore, written (in respect to the red heifer), "which does not have a blemish" — It (the red heifer) is invalidated by a blemish, but the eglah arufah is not invalidated by a blemish. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: If the sin-offering of a bird, whose offerers must be tahor, is not invalidated by a blemish, then the red heifer, whose processors may be tamei (tvul yom), how much more so should it not be invalidated by a blemish! (The verse, then, is needed to tell us that it is invalidated by a blemish.) — No, this may be true of the sin-offering of a bird, which is valid if either male or female, as opposed to a heifer, (where only a female is valid.) Why, then, need it be stated "which does not have a blemish"? (lit., "when there is no blemish in it") When the blemish is in it (it is invalid), but when it has passed, it is valid. R. Yoshiyah Numithi asked before R. Yehudah b. Betheira: What is a blemish which has passed, in which instance it is valid? And he showed me between his two fingers — when(flesh) protrudes or when it has two tails. "upon which a yoke has not come": Scripture speaks of a yoke not in (the time of its) working. And if you would say, a yoke in (the time of its working), would you say that? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, is invalidated by a yoke (in its time of working), then the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should it be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working!) — (No,) this is refuted by the offerings, which are invalidated by a blemish, but not by a yoke (in the time of working), and they would indicate about the red heifer that even though it is invalidated by a blemish, it should not be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working). — No, this may be true of offerings, which are not invalidated by black and white hairs, wherefore a yoke does not invalidate them, as opposed to the red heifer, which is invalidated by black and white, wherefore a yoke (in the time of its working) should invalidate them. What, then, is the intent of "upon which a yoke has not come"? A yoke not in the time of its working. Whence is it derived that other labors are equated with a yoke (to invalidate the red heifer)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, (viz. Devarim 21:3 "which has never been worked, which has never pulled under a yoke"), then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke! — But perhaps it should be transposed, viz.: If (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, other labors were not equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors not be equated with a yoke! It is, therefore, written "which has never been worked." I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been refuted and I have emerged with the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If (in the instance of) the eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke!