Комментарий к Бамидбар 19:3

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 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).