וְשָׂרַ֥ף אֶת־הַפָּרָ֖ה לְעֵינָ֑יו אֶת־עֹרָ֤הּ וְאֶת־בְּשָׂרָהּ֙ וְאֶת־דָּמָ֔הּ עַל־פִּרְשָׁ֖הּ יִשְׂרֹֽף׃
און מע זאָל פֿאַרברענען די קו פֿאַר זײַנע אױגן; איר פֿעל און איר פֿלײש און איר בלוט מיט איר מיסט זאָל מען פֿאַרברענען.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויסעו מרפידים, “they journeyed from Refidim.” This means that on the day they journeyed from Refidim it was New Moon and they arrived later that day at the desert of Sinai. The words ויבואו מדבר סיני ויחנו במדבר, mean that they arrived in the desert on that day, resting, but on the second of the month they made camp facing the mountain. This is why the Torah writes ויחן שם ישראל ההר, “Israel encamped facing the mountain.” The reason the word ויחן is in the singular here whereas at all other reports of the Israelites making camp it is in the plural, i.e. ויחנו, is the Torah’s way of complimenting the people for their unity of purpose when preparing to receive the Torah.
A Midrash (mentioned in Torah Shleimah note 28) claims that the reason for the singular of ויחן is that the word ישראל in our verse is a reference to ישראל סבא, the concept of the people of Israel as envisaged in the name Israel the patriarch. The author of that Midrash clearly distinguishes between the Torah speaking of בני ישראל traveling or camping respectively, and ישראל or מחנה ישראל in 12,37 and here. When the word בני in front of ישראל is absent, he understands the reference to be not to the physical people of Israel but to the spiritual entity it or they represent.
The words נגד ההר, a slightly unusual expression, is to be understood as if the Torah had written כנגד ההר, “opposite the mountain.”
According to the plain meaning of the text the words נגד ההר mean “to the east of the mountain” (compare Pessikta Zutrata). Moses was told on that very day (second of the month) “so you shall say to the House of Yaakov and relate to Children of Israel” (verse 3). The Torah mentioned women and men separately as there are many commandments which apply equally to both men and women. G’d continued with: “you have seen what I did to Egypt,” and continued in verse 5 with: “and now, if you will hearken well and observe My covenant, etc.” The people responded to the above (verse 8) “all that the Lord has said we will do.
On the third day of the month Moses ascended the mountain again and informed G’d of the people’s response (end of verse 8). On the fourth of the month G’d told Moses: “go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow” (verse 10). G’d referred to the fourth and fifth of the month. The words: “be ready for the third day” refer to the sixth of the month, i.e. the third day of their sanctification. From the above you observe that the Torah was given on the sixth day of Sivan.
A Midrash (mentioned in Torah Shleimah note 28) claims that the reason for the singular of ויחן is that the word ישראל in our verse is a reference to ישראל סבא, the concept of the people of Israel as envisaged in the name Israel the patriarch. The author of that Midrash clearly distinguishes between the Torah speaking of בני ישראל traveling or camping respectively, and ישראל or מחנה ישראל in 12,37 and here. When the word בני in front of ישראל is absent, he understands the reference to be not to the physical people of Israel but to the spiritual entity it or they represent.
The words נגד ההר, a slightly unusual expression, is to be understood as if the Torah had written כנגד ההר, “opposite the mountain.”
According to the plain meaning of the text the words נגד ההר mean “to the east of the mountain” (compare Pessikta Zutrata). Moses was told on that very day (second of the month) “so you shall say to the House of Yaakov and relate to Children of Israel” (verse 3). The Torah mentioned women and men separately as there are many commandments which apply equally to both men and women. G’d continued with: “you have seen what I did to Egypt,” and continued in verse 5 with: “and now, if you will hearken well and observe My covenant, etc.” The people responded to the above (verse 8) “all that the Lord has said we will do.
On the third day of the month Moses ascended the mountain again and informed G’d of the people’s response (end of verse 8). On the fourth of the month G’d told Moses: “go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow” (verse 10). G’d referred to the fourth and fifth of the month. The words: “be ready for the third day” refer to the sixth of the month, i.e. the third day of their sanctification. From the above you observe that the Torah was given on the sixth day of Sivan.
Rabbeinu Bahya
Maimonides writes in Hilchot Parah Adumah that this cow was generally either three of four years old. If it happened to be older this did not disqualify her. One does not generally purchase such an animal when it is still a calf and raises it in the care of the Temple treasury. In the event the need arises for such a cow to be purchased and none is available that meets the required criteria age-wise, it is acceptable to put the money for an animal which is younger at that time in escrow and the animal remains under the care of its owners until it is old enough and only then is ownership transferred to the Temple treasury. This rule is derived from the wording: “take to you a red cow” [as opposed to a red calf, Ed.].
It is permissible to buy such a cow from a Gentile, (idolater) and we do not worry that its owner had previously used it in mating practices which are forbidden under Torah law. The reason we do not worry about this is that no one in his right mind puts such an expensive animal at risk, seeing that if such a ritually forbidden mating had taken place the owner would forfeit all the money he had stood to gain from selling this animal to the Israelites.
All the blemishes that normally disqualify an animal as a potential sacrificial offering also disqualify the red cow [although it is not destined for the altar. Ed.]. We derive this from the words: אשר אין בה מום, “ which is unblemished.” The Torah refers to this animal as a חטאת, “(normally translated as “sin offering”) although it is not slaughtered in sacred precincts. This cow is subject to additional restrictions not applicable to animals destined for the altar, as the Torah demands אשר לא עלה עליה עול, “which has never worn a yoke.” Other animals may have served such profane uses prior to being sanctified to became sacrificial offerings.
We have a similar requirement in connection with the עגלה ערופה, “a heifer (calf) which will die by having its neck broken” (Compare Deut. 21,3) where the wording is אשר לא עובד בה אשר לא משכה בעול, “with which no work has been performed, which has not pulled with a yoke.” Just as in the case of the עגלה ערופה such a calf is disqualified if it has performed work for an owner even without the device known as “yoke,” so the red cow too must not have performed any chore even if it had not worn a yoke while doing so. In other words, the “yoke” disqualifies the red cow even if it had never been put to its customary use. Similarly, work performed disqualifies the animal even if it had never worn a yoke. To illustrate: if the animal was connected to a ploughshare even if it had not pulled the plough it would be disqualified; on the other hand if it had been brought to a threshing-ground without having started to thresh it would be fit to serve as a red cow. If someone had used the cow to ride on, to lean on, or had hung something on its tail, or had even covered it merely with a cloth etc., it is disqualified. If the cloth was of a protective nature, i.e. to ward off flies, it is in order. If restraints had been put on the animal because it had behaved rebelliously this does not disqualify the red cow from being used for its designated purpose. If the animal had not first demonstrated unruly behavior making restraints necessary, putting restraints on it merely as a precautionary measure is not permissible. If the cow had performed a useful task without the owner or any other person urging it to do so, it depends on whether the owner approved and meant to benefit by such work. If yes, the animal can no longer serve for its ritual purpose, if the owner did not approve or intend to make use of the result of the animal’s labor the animal is not disqualified. This is the meaning of the formula אשר לא עובד בה, “that the labor had not been performed with it by design.” Approval after the event is equated by halachah as if it had been intended already prior to the event. Therefore, if, for instance, a bird had made the animal’s back its regular seat, this does not impede the animal’s use as a red cow. If a bull had mounted the cow this does disqualify her; if she is pregnant she is also disqualified, of course. The rule governing all this is simple: if the work performed with the animal is for the good of the animal or its well-being it is all right. If its serves the owner or his agent it disqualifies the animal as a potential red cow as described in the Torah.
If an animal which had been designated as a red cow dies before it could be used, or it developed some blemish which prevents it from being used as intended, it may be redeemed. As a result its hide may be used for profane purposes though its meat may not be eaten, or in the case of death being due to natural causes rather than ritual slaughter, its meat must not be fed to the dogs as this would be degrading (even after it has been redeemed for money to the Temple treasury).
If, when the red cow was slaughtered, it was slaughtered for profane purposes instead of with a view to the remains being burned as ashes of the red cow, it will not have the effect of achieving atonement for people being sprinkled with its ash and the water from a living well. If the Temple treasury had bought a red cow and subsequently found an animal of better appearance, the original one may be redeemed and the proceeds applied to the purchase of the second animal even though the original red cow had not developed any blemish disqualifying it.
An ordinary priest is fully qualified to perform the procedure with the red cow. This is derived from verse 3: “and you shall hand it to Eleazar the Priest.” As a general rule the procedure was performed by the High Priest’s substitute, second in command. At the time this legislation was revealed Aaron was still alive. Therefore, when the Torah writes that the procedure is to be performed by his son Eleazar who was his successor, it is clear that not only the High Priest could perform this procedure. The priest performing this procedure is to wear the four priestly garments which an ordinary priest wears when performing sacrificial service within the confines of the Temple and its courtyard.
The flesh of the cow must not be burned on the sacred grounds of the Temple Mount as we know from verse 3: והוציא אותה אל מחוץ למחנה, “he is to take it outside the camp.” This means outside both the camp of the priests, the Levites, and the Israelites. Usually, the red cow was slaughtered on the Mount of Olives. [There were only a total of 9 such cows during the entire 830 years that the two Temples stood. Ed.].
The words: ושחט אותה לפניו, “he shall slaughter it in his presence,” mean that even a non-priest could perform the slaughtering provided the priest stood beside him and watched his every action. Sifri 123 and Yuma 42 state that indeed a lay Israelite slaughtered the cow while Eleazar was watching. Sifri adds that only this animal could be slaughtered at that time. The slaughterer was not allowed to slaughter another animal immediately before or after. The slaughterer must not be involved at that time in any other chore. We derive this from verse 5: ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, “he is to burn the cow in front of his eyes,” i.e. he must not take his eyes off it during the entire procedure until it has become ash. The words in verse 4: “and Eleazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger,” mean that as opposed to sacrificial animals whose blood is sprinkled on the altar, no special vessel was designated for the blood to be put into prior to its being sprinkled on the altar, or in this instance in the direction of the Temple (or Tabernacle). The priest must watch what he is doing while sprinkling as the Torah uses the words: “in the direction of.” The slaughtering is done with the right hand whereas the blood is “caught” with the left and then sprinkled with the fingers of the right hand.
After each of the seven sprinklings the priest wipes his hand on the body of the cow as residue of the blood must not be used again; at the conclusion of the sprinkling he descends from the woodpile upon which the animal’s body is lying and lights the fire. The priest stands some distance away watching until the fire has enveloped most of the cow’s body and its belly has split open. After that the priest takes the cedar-wood and the hyssop, not shorter than one handbreadth, and some wool dyed red (crimson) weighing five selaim and he says to the people standing around him: “this is the cedar-wood” (prescribed by the Torah) three times. After that he points to the hyssop, again saying three times: “this is the hyssop.” Those around him confirm having heard what the priest said by saying הן, “yes,” in response to each of the priest’s statements. Why was all this elaborate ritual necessary? There are seven different varieties of cedars; there are four varieties of hyssop; different artisans use different dyes to achieve the color called תולעת שני, “crimson;” therefore the priest wanted to make sure that all the people around him had confirmed that what he had done was the correct procedure by consensus. According to Maimonides the color crimson can be obtained from the seeds of a plant known as puah, closely resembling the seeds of the carobs, etc.; the priest wanted confirmation that the color of the wool he used corresponded to what the Torah demanded.
The kind of hyssop described by the Torah is the kind eaten by ordinary householders and used to provide flavouring for cooked dishes. The hyssop is sandwiched together with the cedar-wood inside the crimson coloured wool and the priest throws it inside the belly of the cow after it has split open. This is the meaning of the words in verse 6: “into the burnt part of the cow.” He must not add this to the burning cow until the fire has taken hold of most of the animal, neither must he delay this part of the procedure until after the cow has turned to ash.
When the burning has been completed one hits the remains with sticks together with all the wood from the woodpile upon which the cow was burned. After that the whole remains are sieved and anything black (not yet ash) which one comes across whether remains of wood or animal tissue, is beaten so much that it is reduced to ash.
The water into which the ash of the red cow is poured must have been filled into a vessel directly from a spring or well of water as the Torah wrote in verse 17: “they shall put it on (the ash) spring water in a vessel.” The “pouring” of the ash into the vessel filled with water from a spring or river is what is described as “holy,” and as soon as the ash is added this mixture of water and ash is described by the Talmud as מי חטאת, (water with the capacity to bring about atonement or purification or both). The Torah (verse 13) describes this mix of water and ash from the red cow as מי נדה, “waters of sprinkling.”
The sages imposed additional strictures in connection with who is allowed to perform these procedures. Even a person (priest) who has immersed himself in a ritual bath so that he is ritually pure enough to perform service on the altar is not automatically pure enough to perform the procedures outlined in our chapter. He is neither qualified to burn the cow nor to fill the vessel containing the water which will be mixed with the ash and used in sprinkling on the ritually impure person to be purified. Unless the immersion in a ritual bath was for the express purpose of qualifying for the tasks associated with the procedures of the red cow such immersion is not sufficient ritual preparation.
The sages imposed similarly harsh conditions concerning the vessel fit to contain this mixture of spring-water and the ash from the red cow. For example, even the basins in the courtyard of the Temple which were used to catch the blood from sacrificial animals after these were slaughtered in preparation of their blood being sprinkled on the altar, was not considered as of a high enough degree of sanctity to serve for holding the water-ash mixture unless such a basin had previously been immersed for this express purpose.
Maimonides relates in Hilchot Parah Adumah 13,2 that the kerchief of a man of the piety of Yochanan ben Gudgodah who maintained a personal level of ritual purity which would have enabled him to consume sacrificial meat all his life, was considered as if suffering from a level of ritual impurity known as tumat medress of someone suffering from involuntary seminal emissions, when compared to the degree of ritual purity required to perform the procedures of the red cow.
What were the details of purifying people suffering from contamination through contact with the dead by using these waters known as מי נדה? A ritually pure person takes three stalks of the hyssop plant ties them together each little branch wound with a small stalk. He proceeds to dip the heads of the small stalks in the מי נדה of the vessel containing same. While doing so he concentrates on his intention to use the water-ash mixture to sprinkle it on the person to be purified. This procedure occurs on the third and the seventh day of the seven days of purification after sunrise; the mixture of ash and water is sprinkled on the exposed part of the body of the person concerned. It does not matter how little of it hits the skin. If it only hits the tongue this does not help as the tongue is not considered an external part of the body for the purpose of this procedure. If vessels other than earthenware vessels have become contaminated through contact with the dead, the mixture is sprinkled on those vessels. They are purified without any waiting period afterwards. Thus far excerpts from Maimonides on the subject.
It is permissible to buy such a cow from a Gentile, (idolater) and we do not worry that its owner had previously used it in mating practices which are forbidden under Torah law. The reason we do not worry about this is that no one in his right mind puts such an expensive animal at risk, seeing that if such a ritually forbidden mating had taken place the owner would forfeit all the money he had stood to gain from selling this animal to the Israelites.
All the blemishes that normally disqualify an animal as a potential sacrificial offering also disqualify the red cow [although it is not destined for the altar. Ed.]. We derive this from the words: אשר אין בה מום, “ which is unblemished.” The Torah refers to this animal as a חטאת, “(normally translated as “sin offering”) although it is not slaughtered in sacred precincts. This cow is subject to additional restrictions not applicable to animals destined for the altar, as the Torah demands אשר לא עלה עליה עול, “which has never worn a yoke.” Other animals may have served such profane uses prior to being sanctified to became sacrificial offerings.
We have a similar requirement in connection with the עגלה ערופה, “a heifer (calf) which will die by having its neck broken” (Compare Deut. 21,3) where the wording is אשר לא עובד בה אשר לא משכה בעול, “with which no work has been performed, which has not pulled with a yoke.” Just as in the case of the עגלה ערופה such a calf is disqualified if it has performed work for an owner even without the device known as “yoke,” so the red cow too must not have performed any chore even if it had not worn a yoke while doing so. In other words, the “yoke” disqualifies the red cow even if it had never been put to its customary use. Similarly, work performed disqualifies the animal even if it had never worn a yoke. To illustrate: if the animal was connected to a ploughshare even if it had not pulled the plough it would be disqualified; on the other hand if it had been brought to a threshing-ground without having started to thresh it would be fit to serve as a red cow. If someone had used the cow to ride on, to lean on, or had hung something on its tail, or had even covered it merely with a cloth etc., it is disqualified. If the cloth was of a protective nature, i.e. to ward off flies, it is in order. If restraints had been put on the animal because it had behaved rebelliously this does not disqualify the red cow from being used for its designated purpose. If the animal had not first demonstrated unruly behavior making restraints necessary, putting restraints on it merely as a precautionary measure is not permissible. If the cow had performed a useful task without the owner or any other person urging it to do so, it depends on whether the owner approved and meant to benefit by such work. If yes, the animal can no longer serve for its ritual purpose, if the owner did not approve or intend to make use of the result of the animal’s labor the animal is not disqualified. This is the meaning of the formula אשר לא עובד בה, “that the labor had not been performed with it by design.” Approval after the event is equated by halachah as if it had been intended already prior to the event. Therefore, if, for instance, a bird had made the animal’s back its regular seat, this does not impede the animal’s use as a red cow. If a bull had mounted the cow this does disqualify her; if she is pregnant she is also disqualified, of course. The rule governing all this is simple: if the work performed with the animal is for the good of the animal or its well-being it is all right. If its serves the owner or his agent it disqualifies the animal as a potential red cow as described in the Torah.
If an animal which had been designated as a red cow dies before it could be used, or it developed some blemish which prevents it from being used as intended, it may be redeemed. As a result its hide may be used for profane purposes though its meat may not be eaten, or in the case of death being due to natural causes rather than ritual slaughter, its meat must not be fed to the dogs as this would be degrading (even after it has been redeemed for money to the Temple treasury).
If, when the red cow was slaughtered, it was slaughtered for profane purposes instead of with a view to the remains being burned as ashes of the red cow, it will not have the effect of achieving atonement for people being sprinkled with its ash and the water from a living well. If the Temple treasury had bought a red cow and subsequently found an animal of better appearance, the original one may be redeemed and the proceeds applied to the purchase of the second animal even though the original red cow had not developed any blemish disqualifying it.
An ordinary priest is fully qualified to perform the procedure with the red cow. This is derived from verse 3: “and you shall hand it to Eleazar the Priest.” As a general rule the procedure was performed by the High Priest’s substitute, second in command. At the time this legislation was revealed Aaron was still alive. Therefore, when the Torah writes that the procedure is to be performed by his son Eleazar who was his successor, it is clear that not only the High Priest could perform this procedure. The priest performing this procedure is to wear the four priestly garments which an ordinary priest wears when performing sacrificial service within the confines of the Temple and its courtyard.
The flesh of the cow must not be burned on the sacred grounds of the Temple Mount as we know from verse 3: והוציא אותה אל מחוץ למחנה, “he is to take it outside the camp.” This means outside both the camp of the priests, the Levites, and the Israelites. Usually, the red cow was slaughtered on the Mount of Olives. [There were only a total of 9 such cows during the entire 830 years that the two Temples stood. Ed.].
The words: ושחט אותה לפניו, “he shall slaughter it in his presence,” mean that even a non-priest could perform the slaughtering provided the priest stood beside him and watched his every action. Sifri 123 and Yuma 42 state that indeed a lay Israelite slaughtered the cow while Eleazar was watching. Sifri adds that only this animal could be slaughtered at that time. The slaughterer was not allowed to slaughter another animal immediately before or after. The slaughterer must not be involved at that time in any other chore. We derive this from verse 5: ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, “he is to burn the cow in front of his eyes,” i.e. he must not take his eyes off it during the entire procedure until it has become ash. The words in verse 4: “and Eleazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger,” mean that as opposed to sacrificial animals whose blood is sprinkled on the altar, no special vessel was designated for the blood to be put into prior to its being sprinkled on the altar, or in this instance in the direction of the Temple (or Tabernacle). The priest must watch what he is doing while sprinkling as the Torah uses the words: “in the direction of.” The slaughtering is done with the right hand whereas the blood is “caught” with the left and then sprinkled with the fingers of the right hand.
After each of the seven sprinklings the priest wipes his hand on the body of the cow as residue of the blood must not be used again; at the conclusion of the sprinkling he descends from the woodpile upon which the animal’s body is lying and lights the fire. The priest stands some distance away watching until the fire has enveloped most of the cow’s body and its belly has split open. After that the priest takes the cedar-wood and the hyssop, not shorter than one handbreadth, and some wool dyed red (crimson) weighing five selaim and he says to the people standing around him: “this is the cedar-wood” (prescribed by the Torah) three times. After that he points to the hyssop, again saying three times: “this is the hyssop.” Those around him confirm having heard what the priest said by saying הן, “yes,” in response to each of the priest’s statements. Why was all this elaborate ritual necessary? There are seven different varieties of cedars; there are four varieties of hyssop; different artisans use different dyes to achieve the color called תולעת שני, “crimson;” therefore the priest wanted to make sure that all the people around him had confirmed that what he had done was the correct procedure by consensus. According to Maimonides the color crimson can be obtained from the seeds of a plant known as puah, closely resembling the seeds of the carobs, etc.; the priest wanted confirmation that the color of the wool he used corresponded to what the Torah demanded.
The kind of hyssop described by the Torah is the kind eaten by ordinary householders and used to provide flavouring for cooked dishes. The hyssop is sandwiched together with the cedar-wood inside the crimson coloured wool and the priest throws it inside the belly of the cow after it has split open. This is the meaning of the words in verse 6: “into the burnt part of the cow.” He must not add this to the burning cow until the fire has taken hold of most of the animal, neither must he delay this part of the procedure until after the cow has turned to ash.
When the burning has been completed one hits the remains with sticks together with all the wood from the woodpile upon which the cow was burned. After that the whole remains are sieved and anything black (not yet ash) which one comes across whether remains of wood or animal tissue, is beaten so much that it is reduced to ash.
The water into which the ash of the red cow is poured must have been filled into a vessel directly from a spring or well of water as the Torah wrote in verse 17: “they shall put it on (the ash) spring water in a vessel.” The “pouring” of the ash into the vessel filled with water from a spring or river is what is described as “holy,” and as soon as the ash is added this mixture of water and ash is described by the Talmud as מי חטאת, (water with the capacity to bring about atonement or purification or both). The Torah (verse 13) describes this mix of water and ash from the red cow as מי נדה, “waters of sprinkling.”
The sages imposed additional strictures in connection with who is allowed to perform these procedures. Even a person (priest) who has immersed himself in a ritual bath so that he is ritually pure enough to perform service on the altar is not automatically pure enough to perform the procedures outlined in our chapter. He is neither qualified to burn the cow nor to fill the vessel containing the water which will be mixed with the ash and used in sprinkling on the ritually impure person to be purified. Unless the immersion in a ritual bath was for the express purpose of qualifying for the tasks associated with the procedures of the red cow such immersion is not sufficient ritual preparation.
The sages imposed similarly harsh conditions concerning the vessel fit to contain this mixture of spring-water and the ash from the red cow. For example, even the basins in the courtyard of the Temple which were used to catch the blood from sacrificial animals after these were slaughtered in preparation of their blood being sprinkled on the altar, was not considered as of a high enough degree of sanctity to serve for holding the water-ash mixture unless such a basin had previously been immersed for this express purpose.
Maimonides relates in Hilchot Parah Adumah 13,2 that the kerchief of a man of the piety of Yochanan ben Gudgodah who maintained a personal level of ritual purity which would have enabled him to consume sacrificial meat all his life, was considered as if suffering from a level of ritual impurity known as tumat medress of someone suffering from involuntary seminal emissions, when compared to the degree of ritual purity required to perform the procedures of the red cow.
What were the details of purifying people suffering from contamination through contact with the dead by using these waters known as מי נדה? A ritually pure person takes three stalks of the hyssop plant ties them together each little branch wound with a small stalk. He proceeds to dip the heads of the small stalks in the מי נדה of the vessel containing same. While doing so he concentrates on his intention to use the water-ash mixture to sprinkle it on the person to be purified. This procedure occurs on the third and the seventh day of the seven days of purification after sunrise; the mixture of ash and water is sprinkled on the exposed part of the body of the person concerned. It does not matter how little of it hits the skin. If it only hits the tongue this does not help as the tongue is not considered an external part of the body for the purpose of this procedure. If vessels other than earthenware vessels have become contaminated through contact with the dead, the mixture is sprinkled on those vessels. They are purified without any waiting period afterwards. Thus far excerpts from Maimonides on the subject.
Rashi
של means DRAW OFF and take off. It is of the same root as, (Numbers 19:5) “and the iron-head slippeth off (נשל) from the handle”; (Deuteronomy 28:40) “for thine olives shall drop off (ישל)”.