Musar su Osea 4:16

There is also another Midrash which describes the heifer as symbolizing Israel, comparing Israel to a stubborn, defiant cow. Again, also the word אדומה is interpreted by that Midrash as referring to Israel who are redder than pearls. תמימה refers to Israel who are compared to יונתי תמתי, "My perfect turtle dove," in Song of Songs 6,9. The words אשר אין בה מום, "which is totally unblemished," are also a reference to Israel, since the verse quoted above describes that turtle dove. In this way the words אשר לא עלה עליה עול, "which has never accepted a yoke," are a reference to Israel during the period of Jeremiah, when Israel refused to accept the Yoke of Heaven. This Midrash is almost the reverse of the Yalkut! Besides, why does the Midrash continually repeat the words "this refers to Israel?"

Once we follow this approach the verses in Deuteronomy which appeared strange, begin to make sense. Moses first said: "See I have given you חקים and משפטים, i.e. statutes devoid of rationale as well as laws that commend themselves to your reason." Immediately afterwards The Torah quotes the Gentiles as basing their assessment of the Jewish people as a wise and intelligent people on the fact that we perform all these commandments faithfully (compare Deut. 4,5/6). Their argument is that surely just as there are good reasons for the משפטים which have been revealed, there must be equally good reasons for the חקים which He has not seen fit to reveal. These חקים emanate in the domain רשימו. The meaning of the word רק in the verse רק עם חכם ונבון הגוי הגדול הזה, "this nation is a great and intelligent people," then is ריק, empty, i.e. "these commandments cannot be empty, devoid of intellectual content." As long as the people of Israel hold on to Torah and perform its commandments it is complimented by the nations of the world. This is what the Midrash alluded to when it said cryptically, פרה=ישראל, אדומה=ישראל, תמימה=ישראל, אשר לא עלה עליה עול=ישראל. This means that Israel is superior to the nations of the world in four respects, hence the grudging respect of Satan and the rest of the world. If we fail to demonstrate our superiority by heeding those four areas from which Torah values are transmitted to us, we would – G–d forbid! – become victims of the four kingdoms that rule over us in the four exiles. The degree of mystery surrounding these four examples of Torah legislation that Satan and the nations had quoted, varies. The red heifer legislation is the most mystifying, since its true reason is available only to those who have access to the domain of רשימו. The scapegoat on the Day of Atonement is a little less mystifying, as explained in the Zohar, in its commentary on the words איש עתי, Leviticus 16,21. The true reason for that legislation is reserved for those who have access to the domain of חקיקה. The domain חציבה holds the mystery of the levirate marriage legislation, whereas the domain of עשיה contains the answer to the mystery of the כלאים legislation. We have shown why this Parshah in pointing to the mystical domain of רשימו is really the root of all Torah legislation.

The mystical undercurrent of the whole legislation is continued by the Torah in the next paragraph which commences with: "If a man has two wives, etc.” The two "wives" in question are none other than Lilith and Machalat. The "wife" who is described as the אהובה, the beloved one, is none other than Machalat, who captures the imagination of many people who observe her because of her joyful attitude to the transient life on this planet. The other wife, the one the Torah describes as שנואה, the hated one, is Lilith. The firstborn son the Torah speaks of in 21,15, is an allusion to בני בכורי ישראל, Israel. Israel is to always prevail over the hated "wife," even during times when the war against half of the evil urge she represents is waged outside the Holy Land. If we do not properly observe the commandment לא תחיה כל נשמה "Do not allow any of your enemies to survive," then Israel the first born son may turn out to become a בן סורר ומורה, (21,18). Raising a son who turns out to be wayward and defiant is the result of our not having waged the war against the evil urge with all our might. The Zohar describes this passage in approximately the following way: Upon being given this passage of the Torah Moses asked G–d how a Jewish father and mother could be expected to take their own son to the Supreme Court in order to have him executed? This whole passage should be deleted from the Torah! G–d explained to him that it was included to enable us to receive a reward for studying it, though it would always remain in the realm of hypothesis only. At that time G–d called upon יופיאל, the "prince" of Torah, who asked Moses to allow him to explain the meaning of the passage. He explained that the word איש at the beginning of the verse כי יהיה לאיש refers to G–d Himself who is known to us as איש מלחמה from Exodus 15,3. The word בן in our verse refers to the people of Israel, G–d's firstborn son. The words סורר ומורה are an allusion to Hoseah 4,16: כי כפרה סוררה סרר ישראל, "Israel has balked like a stubborn cow." The words: איננו שומע בקול אביו ובקול אמו, refer to G–d the father and כנסת ישראל, the mother, respectively. Such concepts are alluded to by Solomon in Proverbs 1,8: אל תטוש תורת אמך, "Do not abandon the teachings of your mother." The words ויסרו אותו, "they disciplined him," are reminiscent of Kings II 17,13: "G–d warned Israel and Yehudah through all His prophets and seers: 'Turn back from your wicked ways, etc.'" The words: ולא ישמע אליהם are parallel to the words ולא שמעו אליהם in Kings II 17,13. The Torah continues in 21,19: ותפשו בו אביו ואמו והוציאו אותו אל זקני עירו ואל שער מקומו, "His father and mother will seize him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the public place of his community, etc." We must ask ourselves: Why did the Torah not write "their city" instead of "his city?" Why did the Torah not write מקומם, "their community" instead of מקומו? The subjects of עירו and מקומו are the city of G–d and the place of the כנסת ישראל respectively. The Torah alludes to the highest Tribunal in the Celestial Regions whence supervision of man's activities on earth is exercised. The Torah adds the apparently superfluous words בנינו זה "this son of ours" to emphasize that he is not a Canaanite. Suddenly the parents (i.e. the Torah) add a new accusation: זולל וסובא, "he is a glutton and a drunkard" to explain the background to the excesses of such a wayward son, i.e. the presence of Canaanites in Israel's midst from whom the Jewish lad picked up these bad habits and became a delinquent. Psalm 106,35 refers to the results of such social mingling between the Jews and the Canaanites: "They mingled with the nations (Canaanite) and learned their ways." The Torah itself testifies about the Israelites in Numbers 25,2: "The people ate and bowed down to their deities." The eating and drinking with the Canaanites eventually led to these people making obeisances to the deities of their Canaanite (actually Moabite) hosts. It is therefore fair to attribute the cause for turning into a בן סורר ומורה to someone associating socially with the Canaanites. The Torah continues in 21,21: "The men of his city shall thereupon stone him to death." The "men of his city" referred to are the forces G–d has appointed as agents to carry out sentence on people who have been found guilty. The reference to stones are the אבני קלעים with which we are familiar from Uzziah's army in Chronicles II 26,14.