Numbers · Chapter 19

And Hashem spoke with Moses and with Aaron, saying:

This is the statute of the Torah that Hashem has commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, and let them bring you a red cow, a perfect one, in which there is no blemish, upon which no yoke has ever been placed.

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). 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). 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).

This is ‘chukath’ (the statute of) the law. “Since Satan 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. Now I have already written in connection with the goat that is sent away [to Azazel 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, or of a woman after childbirth. [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. 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 savor [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, 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: “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” from the [Written] Torah, namely, the Oral Torah. Therefore it is a [female] heifer and must be red, [symbolic] of the attribute of justice. It is given to Eleazar 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 Satan [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’ [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 pr...

"This is the statute" — This passage too was spoken in the wilderness of Sinai, as Hashem commanded — and they sent [the impure] out of the camp — and at Passover there were those who were impure from contact with the dead, and that is when it was needed. This passage is placed here because it pertains to the priest. — "A red cow, without blemish" — meaning she must not be a young calf. The Gaon [Saadia] said that the purification water [mei niddah] is like honey: it harms one of red-bile temperament yet benefits one of phlegmatic temperament. But this is unnecessary [i.e., such a medical explanation is beside the point].

'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 ...

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. 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. 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...

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. 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. 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.

בני שמור אמרי ומצותי תצפון אתך. מצותי וחיה ותורתי כאישון עיניך “My son, heed my words treasure my commandments within you. Keep my commandments and live; and my teachings as the apple of your eyes” (Proverbs 7,1-2). Throughout the Book of Proverbs Solomon always speaks in the name of the attribute (or emanation) חכמה, wisdom; he refers to all the 613 commandments in the Torah as either אמרים , “words” or מצות, “commandments.” His father David before him already referred to the commandments as אמרים, as we know from Psalms 12,7: אמרות ה’ אמרות טהורות, “the Lord’s commandments are pure commandments.” The commandments of the Torah are subdivided into three groups. They are known as 1) מצות מקובלות, 2) מצות מושכלות, and 3) מצות שאין טעמם נגלה ומבואר 1) Commandments which are based on historical precedents; 2) commandments which appeal to our minds and which are easy to understand and appreciate. 3) Commandments the reason for which and the usefulness of which are completely outside our ability to comprehend. The first group which includes such laws as making and wearing phylacteries or putting fringes on our four-cornered garments as well as the commandment to circumcise our male babies, etc., have a common denominator in that they are associated with the history of our people and our special protection by the Almighty. When we perform any of these commandments we testify to the fact that we belong to the chosen people and that we as well as our forefathers have accepted His covenant and are loyal to it, bound by it. None of these commandments would have been invented by man as only G’d can legislate what are suitable symbolic acts to recall events in our history. This is why many of our sages also call these commandments עדות, “testimony.” They are all of Divine origin. The Torah describes the second generation of Israelites as inquiring after what they perceive to be these “testimonial laws” in Deut. 6,20. Some of these laws testify to the fact that G’d created the universe out of no tangible material, others testify to the selection of the Jewish people as His special nation; still others testify to the manner in which G’d provided for us in the desert, etc. David (Psalms 119,24) is on record as viewing even these commandments as שעשעי, “my delights.” The second group of commandments, even if not always in their details, are the ones which the human mind would have had to invent and legislate if the Torah had not done so; this is why they are called מושכלות, “rational” in essence. Examples are how we are to deal with the crimes of theft, robbery, murder, unfair business practices, etc., etc. The term applied to these kinds of commandments in the Torah is משפטים. The third group of commandments, the ones which completely baffle us, are the legislation not to mix certain seeds, wear clothes combining wool and linen, mixing of meat and milk (though they are part of the same animal), the dispatch of the scape-goat to the Azazel, and the laws involving the red heifer. The Torah’s appellation for all of these types of laws is חקים, “statutes.” This is also one of the groups of laws referred to as the subject of the inquiry by second generation Israelites (and later generations) in Deut. 6,20-21. The answer suggested by the Torah to such inquiries is prefaced with the words: “we used to be slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt who maltreated us in a cruel manner until the Lord our G’d redeemed us from there ad brought us to this land of Israel.” The Torah emphasises “the Lord our G’d did all this,” i.e. that as of that point in time the reputation of the Lord as our national G’d was greatly enhanced. It is therefore appropriate that we loyally accept all three groups of commandments. The passage in Deuteronomy we quoted refers to three groups of commandments, עדות, משפטים, חקים. In the verse quoted above from Proverbs, Solomon merely paraphrases the words of the Torah by speaking of the עדות as אמרי; he refers to the משפטים as שמור מצותי וחיה, “observe My commandments so that you may live (a civilian and secure life).” Finally, when Solomon says: ומצותי תצפון אתך, “treasure My commandments with you,” he refers to the חקים statutes, which, though not understood by you, should be treasured nonetheless. G’d in His capacity as our king has the right to legislate statutes such as the one of the red heifer without revealing His motive. 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. חקת התורה, “a statute of the Torah.” The various commentators understand the word as meaning: ‘statute; royal decree.’ In other words, a law which defies understanding by the subject to whom it is applied. People asked to obey it constantly wonder why they have to obey such a law. The details of the red heifer legislation are not only devoid of logic but appear to defy logic in that contact with that cow defiles the ritually pure while purifying the ritually impure. The truth is that the red heifer is one of the statutes which defies our understanding. Still, the principal meaning of the word חק is derived from the word חקיקה, something that is “indelibly engraved in a rock.” like a picture. G’d hinted to the Children of Israel that their image is indelibly engraved in the celestial regions. In other words, seeing there are no rocks to inscribe things on in the celestial regions, the word חקיקה is a simile for immutable concepts, as basic to G’d’s legislation as if their counterpart had been engraved in rock in our terrestrial universe (compare author’s comment on Leviticus 19,19). This is why a certain group of the commandments is known under the heading of חקים. It is significant that the expression חקת התורה appears in connection with our legislation here, whereas in connection with the legislation involving the scape-goat the Torah defines this as חקת עולם, whereas in connection with kilayim, the prohibition to mix species which G’d wanted to keep separate, the Torah simply writes את חקותי תשמורו, “observe My statutes.” Whenever the Torah refers to a commandment as having an aspect of חוק, this is its way of reminding us of the immutability of such a commandment. Another reason why the term חק is applied to certain laws is that the word means גבול, “limitation,” such as when the prophet Jeremiah 15,22 describes the sand on the beaches of the sea as the limit to the ocean’s power of expanding into the area designated as “the dry land.” The wording there is: אשר שמתי גבול לים חק עולם ולא יעברנהו, “who set the sand as a boundary for the sea as a limit for all time not to be transgressed.” Other examples of the meaning of the word חק being “boundary,” are Jeremiah 31,35: חקות ירח וכוכבים לאור לילה, “the laws of moon and stars for light by night.” In other words, sun and moon respectively serve as boundaries of day and night respectively (compare the whole verse in Jeremiah). The philosophical aspect of the meaning of “boundary” for the word חק in connection with this legislation is that there are limits, boundaries, to the extent to which we may employ our investigative faculties in probing its meaning. We have to discipline ourselves in acknowledging that G’d clearly did not want us to probe beyond a certain point. You need to appreciate that there is a difference in meaning between the word חק and the word חקה. Any commandment described as חק has its origin in the attribute זכור. [The author refers to the two aspects of Sabbath legislation described by the Torah as זכור and שמור respectively, Ed.]. The former refers to an emanation on the right side of the diagram of the emanations, whereas the latter is part of the left side of that diagram. We find in connection with the laws of Passover (Exodus 12,25) that the Torah categorises that legislation as לחק לך ולבניך, “as a statute for you and your children.” A חק is something definitive, decisive. We find the word in the benedictions recited at the circumcision, i.e. חק בשארו שם, “He set a חק (seal) on the flesh of his offspring.” In our prayers on New Year’s Day we speak of the requirement to blow the shofar on that day as being חק לישראל, (Psalms 81,5) a very definitive requirement. This point is also made in the Sefer Yetzirah 2,1 where the author writes כי חק הוא מכריע, that the word חק reconciles conflicting concepts [between the right and the left side of the emanations. Ed.]. A commandment described as חקה, is derived from the attribute שמור. Examples are such statements as Leviticus 19,19 את חוקותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My statutes.” The statutes referred to are not to mix certain species, not to marry the wife of a brother while the brother is alive (The word שמירה is used in connection with that commandment). Here too the Torah couches the legislation in the word חקה rather than חק, similar to the wording in Leviticus 20,22 summing up the legislation involving forbidden sexual unions. [The difference between the two words used for these various legislations may perhaps be defined as the difference between positive and negative commandments. The former are described as חק, the latter as חקה. Ed.]. 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.” 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. 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. פרה אדומה תמימה, “a completely red cow without a blemish.” The word תמימה refers to the colour, not to the size or other features of the cow. If this cow had been undersized compared to other cows of similar age this would not disqualify the animal from serving the purpose described by the Torah. Two black hairs or two white hairs in its coat would disqualify the cow from being used for the procedure described here. It is not surprising therefore that the price of such a cow would be very high (compare Kidushin 31). 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. A Midrashic approach as presented by Rashi: Concerning the words: “they shall take to you a red cow.” The words: “to you” mean that the people have to pay for this red cow. Just as when the people had divested themselves of their golden jewelry in order to enable Aaron to make the golden calf (Exodus 32,3), they now have to pay for the instruments which will secure them purification and forgiveness for the ritual contamination they had caused themselves thereby. The matter is best illustrated by a parable. The son of the king’s maidservant had dirtied the palace. Thereupon the king ordered the maid to clean up the filth her son had left lying about. Similarly, the red cow is to atone for the whole episode of the golden calf. The reason that the cow is to be red is understood by the Midrash as natural, seeing that sins are generally associated with the colour red, i.e. blood guilt. We know this from Isaiah 1,18: “if your sins are crimson, they will become white as snow (after expiation).” The word תמימה, unblemished, is understood by the Midrash as a reference to the unblemished state of the Jewish nation prior to the sin of the golden calf. Due to their participation in that sin in varying degrees they had all became spiritually blemished. The function of the red cow and the procedure of sprinkling the Israelites with its ash and holy water would remove these blemishes. The words: “which has not borne a yoke,” are understood by the Midrash as an allusion to the yoke of the Torah which the Israelites had shaken off by their participation in the sin of the golden calf. They had rejected the yoke of accepting G’d as king. The words: “to Eleazar the priest,” are understood as an oblique reference to Aaron’s share in that sin. The red cow ritual could not be performed by Aaron as the participant in the guilt cannot reverse himself to act as advocate for the guilty. [Aaron could, of course, perform the ritual of future red cows if needed. Ed.] The words: “he shall burn the cow” are an allusion to the golden calf which Moses had burned immediately after his return from the mountain (Exodus 32,20). The words: “cedar-wood, hyssop, and crimson-red wool,” are understood by the Midrash as an allusion to the 3,000 active participants in the worship of the golden calf whom the Levites had executed. The cedar is the tallest of the trees, whereas hyssop is the smallest. It symbolizes that the tall become haughty, sin as a result, and in the end wind up as the lowest, the most insignificant. The worm, תולעת, (source of the red color crimson) also symbolizes the human being after he has become guilty. The word למשמרת, “as a safekeeping,” (verse 9) is a reminder that the sin of the golden calf will never be forgotten as every time the Israelites become guilty of a sin and punishment, some of the unexpiated guilt of the golden calf episode will be added to their punishment throughout the generations. This is based on Exodus 32,34: “and on the day when I make an accounting, I shall bring their sin to account against them.” In this way the sin will be remembered for all times. The golden calf had brought defilement and ritual impurity on all who had any dealings with it, (Psalms 106,28) “they attached themselves to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices offered to the dead.” [The reference to the “dead” is to compare the impurity conferred by idolatry to that conferred by contact or association with the dead. Ed.]. We also have a verse in Isaiah 30,22 comparing idolatry to associating with a menstruous woman “You will cast them away like a menstruous woman. ‘Out! you will call to them’” The red cow causes similar defilement to all who busy themselves with it. Just as the purification of the Israelites from that sin at the time came about by their being sprinkled with the ash of the golden calf and water (Exodus 32,20), so the red cow procedure will parallel what Moses had done at the time in order to rehabilitate the Israelites who had become defiled. Midrash Pessikta d’Rav Kahana (volume I page 75 edition by Dov Mandelbaum) comments as follows: The word פרה, cow, is a reference to Egypt, compare Jeremiah 46,20: “Egypt is a handsome heifer.” The word אדומה, red, is a reference to Babylon, compare Daniel 2,38: “you are the head of gold (red).” The word תמימה, unblemished, is a reference to the kingdom of the Medes as we know from Rabbi Chiyah bar Aba who described the kings of that kingdom as תמימים, unblemished. The only complaint G’d had against these kings was that they practiced idolatry, a tradition they had carried on from their forefathers. The words: “which does not have a blemish,” refer to Alexander the great. When Alexander came face to face with the High Priest Shimon Hatzadik he got off his horse and stood at attention in greeting him. He said: “blessed be the G’d of Shimon Hatzadik.” His adjutants asked him why he showed such deference to a mere Jew? He explained to them that before every victorious battle the image of this man had appeared to him. The words: "“which has not worn a yoke,” refer to the kingdom of Edom (Rome). This kingdom completely rejected obeisance to G’d even blaspheming Him, as we know from Psalms 73,25: “Whom else have I in heaven? And having you I want no one else on earth.” [This Midrash attributes these blasphemous words quoted by the psalmist to the kingdom of Edom. Ed.]. The words: “and you shall give her to Eleazar the priest and he will take it outside the camp, etc.,” are an allusion to the future when the protective angel of that kingdom will be expelled from the celestial regions. G’d will slaughter this angel representing Edom. We know this from Isaiah 34,6: “for the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom.” Rabbi Berechyah commented on that verse and on our verse (5) “he shall burn the cow in front of his eyes,” that this corresponds to Daniel 7,11: “I watched till the beast was slain and its body destroyed, and consigned to the fire’s burning.” The words: “its skin, its flesh and its blood with its dung shall he burn,” are an allusion to what we read in Ezekiel 27,27: “your wealth, your wares, your merchandise, your sailors and your pilots, the men who made your repairs those who carried on your traffic, and all the fighting men within you, all the multitude within you, shall go down into the depths of the sea on the day of your downfall.” Thus far Midrash Pessikta d’Rav Kahana. Tanchuma on Chukat 8 comments as follows on the words: “they shall take a red cow to you.” The words “a cow to you,” mean that I, G’d, will reveal the meaning of this legislation to you, but for everyone else it will remain in the realm of a חוקה, a statute, beyond their understanding. This interpretation is based on an illuminating comment by Rav Huna on two verses (Psalms 75,3 and Zecharyah 14,6). In the former verse the psalmist writes: At the time I choose I will give judgment equitably.” [At that time the justice of My ways will become revealed to everyone, seeing G’d did not mean to imply that up until that time His justice had been inequitable. Ed.]. In the other verse the prophet quotes G’d as saying: “in that day there shall be neither sunlight nor cold moonlight, but there shall be a continuous day -only the Lord knows when- of neither day or night, and there shall be light at eventide.” The meaning of the verse is that there will remain matters which while they are not revealed to you in this world will be revealed to you in that future, such as the blind man who gains his sight, of whom Isaiah 42,16 writes: “I will guide the blind by a road they did not know, and I will make them walk by paths they never knew I will turn darkness before them to light.....these are the things which I have done and I will not abandon them.” The crucial word in that verse is the word עשיתים, instead of אעשה אותם, i.e. “I have done them,” instead of “I am going to do them” (as we would have expected). This means (according to Tanchuma) that what is described here as a view of the future G’d has already shown to Rabbi Akiva and his companions (who descended into the Pardess). A different approach to the same verse: Even matters which have not been revealed to Moses will be revealed to Rabbi Akiva. This is based on Job 28,10: “his eyes behold every precious thing.” These words which describe someone as seeing “every precious thing” refer to Rabbi Akiva. Solomon said in Kohelet 7,23: “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought to myself that I would become wise, but it is beyond me.” The words: “I would become wise,” are a reference to the testimony in Kings I 5,9: “the Lord had given wisdom to Solomon and discernment in great measure....and his wisdom was greater than that of all the Kedemites and all the wisdom of Egypt.” What precisely did the wisdom of the Kedemites consist of? They knew how to interpret zodiac signs, were experts in astrology; they were also familiar with the tiar, a bird (raven?) based on Kohelet 10,20: “for a bird of the sky may carry the sound, and some winged creature may betray the matter.” Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel used to say that he liked three customs of the Orientals. They do not kiss on the mouth but on the hand; when they cut meat they always employ a knife; when they ask someone’s advice on a matter they invariably do this in the field (where they cannot be overheard). This latter practice is based on Yaakov consulting with his wives in the field on his decision to leave Lavan (compare Genesis 31,4). What did the wisdom of the Egyptians which Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel praised consist of? You will find that when Solomon was about to build the Temple he sent word to Pharaoh Necho asking him to supply him with artisans on loan to help him in the construction. How did Pharaoh answer this request? He consulted his astrologers to determine which of his artisans would not live out the year and he then dispatched these artisans to Solomon. When Solomon saw these people he realized with the aid of Holy Spirit that they were all going to die during that year. He provided each one with a shroud and sent them back to Pharaoh with a note reading: “were you short of shrouds in Egypt? Here I send you your artisans back with a gift of shrouds.” When the Book of Kings wrote that Solomon was wiser than “כל האדם, “any man” (or “Adam,”) what precisely did the unique wisdom of Adam consist of? You will find a discussion in the Midrash that when G’d was about to create Adam He consulted with the ministering angels about His plan saying: “let us make Adam in our image and in our likeness.” The angels countered: “what is so special about Adam that You want to bother with him?” G’d responded that the Adam He intended to create would be wiser than they. How did G’d proceed to prove His point? He assembled all the beasts, the birds, etc., and asked the angels to name them. The angels were unable to do this. After G’d had created Adam, He paraded all the animals in front of him and asked him: “what is the name of this animal, etc.?” Adam replied: “this one is called “lion,” this one is called “giraffe,” this one is called “sheep,“ etc.; etc. This is the meaning of Genesis 2,20: “Adam called the names of all the beasts.”‘ All these names Adam gave the beasts were not merely arbitrary names he chose to call them by, but they reflected the essence of each animal respectively. I have already discussed this in greater detail in my commentary on Genesis 2,19. When G’d asked Adam what his own name was, he answered: “Adam.” He explained that he said this seeing he had been created out of אדמה, raw material taken from the soil. Thereupon G’d asked Adam what His name was. Adam answered that G’d’s name was the tetragram. When G’d wanted to know what had given him this idea, (seeing he had not been told) he answered: for You are the Master of all creatures. We know that Adam was correct from Isaiah 42,8 אני י-ה-ו-ה הוא שמי, “I am the Lord, this is My name.” G’d meant that He adopted (or retained this name) seeing the first human being Adam had bestowed it upon Him. This was a pact between Adam and G’d that G’d would henceforth be known by the name bestowed upon him by His first intelligent creature. When we read in Kings I 5,11 that Solomon was wiser than Eytan the Ezrachi, whom did Jeremiah (author of that Book) have in mind when he wrote these words? It was a reference to Avraham. Psalm 89 is attributed to Avraham as the word האזרחי, at the beginning of that psalm is a reference to the “East” according to our sages in Baba Batra 15. Heyman is understood to be Moses (ibid). The philological connection is established by the word נאמן in Numbers 12,7 that G’d said of Moses בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is trusted in My entire House.” כלכל, another of the wise men mentioned in the chapter of the Book of Kings extolling Solomon’s wisdom is a reference to Joseph (who “provided” for all of Egypt economically with his wisdom). The Egyptians recognized that the only reason a man whom they considered a slave was able to rule over them was the extreme wisdom of Joseph which enabled him to maintain himself in that position. The Egyptians who had been suspicious of Joseph and his ability brought him seventy different pieces of paper, each in a different language, asking him to explain what was written thereon. Joseph was able to read each in its respective language. Not only that; Joseph also knew Hebrew, a tongue which the Egyptians did not understand. We base this on Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו, i.e. an allusion that Joseph knew something in addition to what anyone else knew. The word דרדע, another person named as very wise in Kings 5,11 is a reference to the generation of Israelites who had experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai in the desert and who had been granted insights exceeding that of any other generation. They were known as the דור דעה, “the generation imbued with knowledge.” The בני מחול who are also listed in the Book of Kings as possessing outstanding wisdom are an allusion to the people of the period of the golden calf whom G’d had forgiven their participation in that sin, hence they were called בני מחול, “people who had been pardoned.” The Book of Kings there continues in quantifying Solomon’s wisdom by attributing to him no fewer than three thousand parables (proverbs) and over one thousand poems. Concerning this enigmatic statement Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni opines that he made a search of the entire Bible and could not come up with more than approximately 800 verses in which Solomon is mentioned as saying anything of significance. We are therefore forced to interpret these numbers mentioned in the Book of Kings not as original sayings recorded in the Bible but as the number of interpretations offered by Solomon on a far smaller number of texts. When Kings I 5,13 speaks about Solomon “speaking about trees,” one such example may be that Solomon examined the phenomenon of a person afflicted with the skin disease tzoraat requiring some of the wood from the tallest tree (cedar) and some of the wood from the most lowly tree (hyssop) to effect his purification. Solomon suggested that the cause of the affliction was that the person so stricken was guilty of arrogance, considering himself superior to his contemporaries. In order to be cured of this psychological defect he had to “lower” himself (even in his own eyes) to the level of the hyssop, the lowest of the trees in order to be fit to rejoin society. The Book of Kings goes on to describe part of Solomon’s wisdom as his ability to speak על הבהמה ועל העוף ועל הרמש ועל הדגים, “on the mammals, the birds, the creeping creatures and the fish.” He defined the reason why mammals, if fit to eat, require the severing of both the gullet and the windpipe, whereas birds require the severing of only one of these organs. He explained that this was related to the raw material these creatures were made of, i.e. the mammals were created from the soil (Genesis 1,24), whereas the birds were created from a mixture of water and soil, i.e. from mud (Genesis 1,20). When Solomon is reported as speaking about the creeping things, the meaning is that he explained why eight of these species confer ritual impurity on contact with their carcass, etc. He also explained why people who hunt or injure these species on the Sabbath are guilty of a major infraction of the Sabbath legislation, whereas other related creeping creatures are not treated in that way by halachah, i.e. because these eight species are covered by skin (Shabbat 107). Concerning the statement in Kings that Solomon spoke about the fish, he explained why they do not require ritual slaughter in order to make them fit to eat for Israelites, as we know from Numbers 11,22 where Moses speaks of slaughter for mammals and fowl, but implies that the mere gathering in of fish make them fit to be eaten. In short, Solomon declares that whereas he was able to figure out satisfactory reasons for all the legislations of the Torah concerning these creatures, the reason for the red cow legislation had escaped him. It is interesting that the numerical value of the words והיא רחוקה, which Solomon uses to describe his inability to fathom the meaning of something, is the same as that of פרה אדומה, “red cow” (341). When perusing the Bible and the Talmud we find that there have been a total of 9 red cows (view of the sages in Parah 3,5). The first one was burnt during Moses’ life time.; the second one was burnt during the period of Ezra in the early years of the second Temple. Shimon Hatzadik, as well as Yochanan the High Priest (early Hasmonean period), each burnt 2 such red cows. The seventh was burnt by Elihueyni, the eighth by Chanamel the “Egyptian”, whereas the ninth and last was burnt by Ishmael ben Pabi. The tenth and final one will be burned by the Messiah (according to Maimonides). The meaning of Kohelet 8,1: מי כהחכם ומי יודע פשר דבר, חכמת אדם תאיר פניו ועז פניו ישנא, ”Who is like the wise? Who knows what things mean? A man’s wisdom lights up his face, and the boldness of his face is transformed” is as follows: the words: “Who is like the wise?” refer to G’d of Whom it is written: “the Lord founded earth with wisdom.” (Proverbs 3,19). The words: “who knows what things mean?” are also a reference to G’d who explained the Torah to Moses. Concerning the words: ”a man’s wisdom lights up his face,” Rabbi Yudan said that the power of the prophets is great as they are able to draw relevant comparisons between the manifestation of power in the celestial regions and the appearance of man. Rabbi Yudan bases this on Daniel 8,16: “and I heard a human voice in the midst of Ulai.” Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Seymon derives this point from Ezekiel 1,26: ועל דמות הכסא דמות כמראה אדם עליו מלמעלה, “on top of this semblance of a throne, there was a semblance of a human form.” Concerning the words: “and the boldness of his face is transformed,” this is understood to refer to G’d’s ability to switch from His manifestation as attribute of Justice to manifesting Himself as attribute of Mercy when dealing with the Jewish people. Compare Tanchuma Chukat end of verse 6. Tanchuma goes on (on verse 7) that there are four pieces of Torah legislation which are targeted by the evil urge especially, all of which have been defined by the Torah as חקה, statute. They are: 1) the prohibition of marrying the wife of one’s brother (as a divorcee or widow with children, whereas she is to become the wife of that same brother-in-law if her husband had not sired children). 2) the prohibition of wearing wool and linen in one garment or sowing different species of seed in the same field. Seeing that it is permitted to make a talit of linen and attach woolen tzitziyot, the evil urge targets this legislation presenting it to us as illogical. 3) the law of the scapegoat which apparently carries the sins of the people as a gift to Satan. The Torah demands that the person accompanying said scape-goat purifies himself (as if the sins of these people “carried” by the beast had contaminated him whereas the scapegoat itself is killed while conferring life (forgiveness) on the sinners whose sins the beast “carries” (Leviticus 16,26). 4) The legislation of the red cow. What arouses the ire of the evil urge is the fact that all those who are involved in the ritual of the red cow, though of superior degree of ritual purity, are contaminated by it, whereas the ash of the same beast sprinkled on a ritually impure person has the power to purify such a person. According to that Midrash, Job 14,4 had this legislation in mind when he said: “Who can produce a clean thing out of an unclean one? No One!” (only G’d). Examples of G’d being able to produce the clean out of the unclean are 1) Avraham sired by an arch idolater such as his father Terach. 2) The king Chizkiyah of Yehudah whose father Achaz was a confirmed heretic. 3) Mordechai who was descended from Shimi of the tribe of Binyamin who had cursed David in the vilest terms. The people of Israel who emerged from amongst all the idolatrous Gentile nations are another example of the seemingly impossible becoming reality. So is the promise of the world of the future which will be the outcome of a transformation of this present world of lies and deceit. Job meant that the only one able to orchestrate such totally unlikely phenomena is the Unique One, the Lord! The Midrash adds the fact that the minimum size which makes an afflicted person subject to the tzoraat disease and contamination being the size of half a bean, while if the entire surface of the skin is covered by the eczema the person thus afflicted remains ritually pure. The Midrash just quoted explained to us the remarkable and illogical aspects of these four pieces of legislation the Torah introduces under the heading of “statute,” and in particular the totally incomprehensible fact that a little of the red cow’s ash can reverse the most severe kind of ritual impurity known as אבי אבות הטומאה, i.e. the sword which has killed a person. No wonder that the evil urge at the instigation of Satan tries to seduce us into refusing to accept such statutes which defy our intellect!. The Midrash cites the verse in Job to postulate that indeed what is legislated here could never be ordained by mortal man but had to be reserved for G’d the Creator Who alone can legislate this having demonstrated in life, (the examples of Avraham emerging from Terach, etc.) that it is not as far-fetched as meets the eye. The Midrash implies that if we can accept that a skin disorder involving a patch of skin less than the size of a bean can result in a person being completely ostracized from society whereas someone whose skin is completely covered with the same disease remains pure, we can also accept the four examples of legislation which form the specific target of the evil urge. The Talmud (Niddah 9) points out that the verse from Job 4,14 also may be applied to the Creator Who saw fit to convert woman’s menstrual blood into milk, i.e. something symbolizing a wasted opportunity (not becoming pregnant) turns into a life-giving nutrient for babies. Such phenomena seen in nature surely make it easier to observe legislation of the Torah even if we do not understand it. Using such reasoning Rabbi Eliezer HaKalir (the famous liturgical poet) pointed out in his poem siluk before the kedushah recited on the Sabbath we read this portion that if the dead body remains inside the house the house itself has not yet become ritually unclean. As soon as the dead body (the source of the ritual impurity) has been removed, the house itself has become ritually impure. On the face of it, this is halachically quite untenable. However, Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir uses the term “house” as a simile for a woman’s womb. His comments describe the halachah we learned in Chulin 71 that if an embryo dies within the womb of the mother and the midwife touches it upon examining the mother internally, such a dead fetus does communicate severe ritual impurity on said midwife though the mother of that fetus is not affected. As soon as the dead fetus exits from the mother she herself becomes ritually impure for seven days without touching the fetus. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Tumat Met chapter 25,12). [I believe the Midrash also wants to imply that in the event anyone accuses Moses of having invented this kind of legislation this is totally impossible as a human mind could not come up with such illogical-appearing legislation. Ed.] A kabbalistic approach to our paragraph: The red cow is an allusion to the oral Torah, the attribute of Justice in its most severe form. This attribute is the source of ritual impurity. The reason why this chore was given to Eleazar to perform was in order that he should address the attribute of Justice in its most concentrated form. Such thoughts would not be held against him [seeing the author had stated repeatedly that all offerings are addressed to Hashem, the attribute of Mercy, Ed.] as it was slaughtered outside holy precincts and was not considered as a sacrificial offering. This is also the reason this legislation was prefaced with the words זאת חקת התורה, as if to say: “this new kind of legislation that the Torah has seen fit to reveal here as something to be performed outside the precincts of the Temple is not meant to convey the impression that it is addressed to someone other than G’d, G’d forbid.” It is anchored, i.e. embedded, נחקקת in the Torah itself. However, its origin is the oral Torah, which is the sixth of the emanations (counting from מלכות upward). Even though a full comprehension of the mystical dimension of this statute is way beyond our ability to understand, it is important to understand that the concept of ritual impurity is allowed to spread no further (upward) than the sixth emanation, that of גבורה. This is the emanation, attribute, which characterized Yitzchak who lay on the altar bound by the attribute of Mercy on the outside. If the attribute of Mercy would not have been present and active and the attribute of Justice would be allowed full reign the world would face destruction immediately. This is why the Master of Mercy provided us through this procedure with a method of turning the attribute of Justice at its fiercest into a milder form of itself. This is the meaning of the words: “they shall take to you a cow, one that is red, an unblemished specimen, an animal which has not been tainted by having been subservient to any (other) master such as the emanations (attributes) on the lower rungs of that diagram.” We know that even the next lower emanation was not saved from having a “master” impose a yoke upon it as that emanation, תפארת, harmony, has been associated with the Holy Temple which has been destroyed and therefore has been "mastered” by impure forces on earth. (Compare Isaiah 64,10 בית קדשנו ותפארתנו, and Psalms 78,61: ויתן לשבי עזו ותפארתו ביד צר, “He delivered into captivity His power and glory into the hand of the oppressor.”) The cherubs (on the cover of the Holy Ark) were exiled together with the other furnishings of the Temple and we do not find that they had been hidden, as had the Holy Ark itself as well as the Menorah, the lampstand. The emanations which are “higher” than that of תפארת, are described as בתי גנזי, “the houses of My hidden (treasure)” in Beytzah 16. I have already discussed this in connection with Genesis 6,6 (see our translation there). The reason that this red cow was slaughtered outside the holy precincts of the Temple was in order for it to be able to chase away, to diffuse the spirit of impurity. This is why the remains of the cow (ash) together with water from an original source, מים חיים, would effect purification by means of the vessel within which it was contained (verse 17). Purity is derived from an influence exerted by the attribute of Mercy, an emanation higher than that of גבורה, i.e. the attribute (emanation) of Justice, the emanation responsible for every kind of impurity. You will need to appreciate that some Kabbalists are in doubt whether the fact that the procedure involving the red cow was carried out completely outside the confines of the Temple meant that it represented a higher degree of sanctity than that which pervaded the Sanctuary. In other words, everything connected with the red cow would have represented “holy of holies,” whereas only a small portion of the Sanctuary itself was designated as “holy of holies.” If so, the level of sanctity represented by the red cow as well as its remains would have been superior to that of the sacrificial animals offered on the Altar inside the precincts of the Temple so that there was really no comparison between the red cow and its counterparts inside the Holy Temple. On the other hand, some Kabbalists think that the reason the procedure of the red cow was conducted outside holy precincts points to the fact that its sanctity was below that of even the lowest level of sanctity inside the holy precincts and that this is the reason that no part of it was processed inside those confines. These people then raised the following question: assuming that the red cow was of such a high level of sanctity that it surpassed the levels of sanctity in the Temple, how could it possibly confer impurity on its (uncontaminated) handlers? On the other hand, if it was of such inferior sanctity that it had to be slaughtered and its remains kept outside sacred ground, how was it capable of conferring purity on the previously impure? Some Kabbalists answered these questions by saying that indeed the entire red cow was “holy of holies” and that the reason it conferred impurity on its handlers was that any pure person on earth will automatically become impure through contact with extra-terrestrial purity (which is of far higher degree). Seeing the red cow represented extra-terrestrial i.e. celestial purity (or sanctity) we do not have a problem. This concept is reflected in the Torah writing (Exodus 29,37) “anyone touching the Altar will become holy,” i.e. will be burnt (as had happened to the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu). Total terrestrial sanctity is relegated when it confronts celestial sanctity. What applies to relative sanctity, i.e. terrestrial sanctity versus celestial sanctity, also applies to terrestrial purity as opposed to celestial purity. This may be the meaning of Yuma 21 that אש דוחה אש, אש אוכלת אש, “one category of fire displaces, relegates, another category of fire.” The “fire” of the Shechinah displaces or relegates terrestrial fire. The Talmud there describes the penalty incurred by the angels who had opposed the creation of Adam by saying that he did not deserve G’d’s consideration. G’d is reported as having stretched out His finger at these angels and burning them. If differences in the quality of fire exist among the angels in the celestial regions it is easy to understand why terrestrial fire should be inferior to even the lowest of the celestial fires. We are told in a Midrash that when Moses ascended Mount Sinai he reached a certain spot where the angel Matniel barred his way. This angel instructed Moses to proceed further and meet the angel Sandalfon. Moses answered that he was afraid to do so as that angel (angel of fire) would likely burn him. Thus far the Midrash. [Our author’s point in quoting this excerpt is simply to draw our attention to “fires” in celestial regions. Ed.] According to some Kabbalists the red cow was entirely in the category of holy of holies. Personally, I feel that in some respects it was holy whereas in other respects it was totally secular in status. Seeing that the red cow transmits a spirit of ritual impurity it contains a purely secular element. Seeing, however, that the Torah refers to it as חטאת, i.e. acting as a means to expiate, it must also contain an element of holiness. Because of the fact that it is composed of two opposite elements the Torah applied stricter rules to it than apply to the animals which serve as sacrificial offerings on the Altar, seeing no one is in doubt about their status. The reason that the Torah writes here about the rules of purification for people contaminated by impurity conferred by contact with the bodies of human beings who have died, is that the ash of the red cow is so crucial in the purification process of such people. The root cause of living creatures contracting spiritual impurity dates back to the original cause of death, the serpent in Gan Eden. This root cause is known as כח המושל, or הר הגדול, (Compare Kohelet 10,4 and Zecharyah 4,7 respectively). Nachmanides writes that the bodies of people whose death is due to נשיקה, a “kiss” by G’d, do not become ritually impure. The prophet Zecharyah in that verse describes the elimination of death, the angel of death, etc., in the future. He employs the simile of the “great mountain which will be flattened at that time” as the simile describing the overcoming of the greatest obstacle in our lives on this earth prior to the coming of the Messiah. This is what Maimonides had in mind when he stipulates that the red cow which will be burned by the Messiah will be the tenth and final one as with the absence of death there will be no need for further such means of purification.

“This is the statute of the Torah that the Lord commanded, saying.” Why do I need the redundant saying, since it already stated The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying? It seems that this is because the nations mock Israel particularly regarding this commandment, whose reason is hidden from all living beings, and they say, What is this service to you? And the Torah says, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes and cast aspersions on the entire Torah. This is what is meant by that the Lord commanded, saying — that you need to respond to the hasty skeptic that this commandment is a statute of the Torah, meaning a decree of the King, blessed be His name, upon us, and we do not have permission to question it. Just as Rashi explained the answer for us, according to this interpretation, this would be the format of the answer to the mocking skeptic. Therefore it says this is the statute of the Torah and not “this is the statute of the [red] heifer,” because this format is an answer to the skeptics who mock Israel, telling them it is a decree of the King, may He be blessed. The Torah is in place of the word “King” because from Him, blessed be He, the Torah comes forth, so they should not say that this commandment is not among the commandments of the Torah. And what is written in Parashat Va’etchanan (4:6): For this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, who shall hear all these statutes. Yet here it implies the opposite, that they mock the statutes. The answer to this is that there are statutes whose reasoning human intellect can grasp, besides those whose reasons are hidden from the general populace and revealed only to exceptional individuals, the rare remnants of the generation. But this red heifer — its reason is hidden from all people, for even Solomon, peace be upon him, who understood everything, could not understand the red heifer, saying about it, it is far from me (Ecclesiastes 7:23). Therefore, the nations who hear only about the statute of the red heifer certainly mock it. However, in the verse cited earlier it says all these statutes, because when they hear all the statutes together, including those that have revealed reasoning, then they will testify and declare that even the concealed statute must have a secret meaning, and they will attribute the deficiency to the limited understanding of the seeker rather than to the statute itself. “And they shall take to you a cow, etc.” Rashi explains that forever it is called by your name, etc. What preciousness and greatness was given to Moses in this, that the cow would be called by his name. What seems closest to me to say on this is that a commandment is only named after the one who completes it. According to our Sages (Midrash Rabbah 19:8), the Red Heifer atones for the sin of the Golden Calf — “let the mother come and clean up the filth of her child.” And just as Moses began this atonement when he burned the calf and ground it to fine dust, so too should he complete the atonement, so that the completion is also called by his name. This explains what our Sages said (Yalkut Shimoni, Yitro 268): When Moses heard that the Holy One, blessed be He, stated a law in the name of [Rabbi] Eliezer — “A [red] heifer is two years old, a calf is one year old” — he said, “May it be Your will that this Eliezer be one of my descendants,” as it is said, And the name of one was Eliezer (Exodus 18:4). Why did Moses specifically request that this law come from his descendants, more than all the other secrets of Torah truthfully spoken in every generation by its interpreters and sages? Rather, because in the incident of the Golden Calf, Moses gave his life for Israel, as it is said, Erase me from Your book (Exodus 32:32), and they [the people] were called by his name, as it is said, Then He remembered the days of old, Moses, his people (Isaiah 63:11). Therefore, he wanted that this cow, from beginning to end, be called by his name, because the purpose of the Red Heifer is to uproot idolatry, and similarly, the broken-necked calf atones for bloodshed, since in the act of the Golden Calf they also transgressed bloodshed by killing Hur. Therefore it says, And they shall take to you, meaning that the completion of this commandment will be called by your name. And because it says “This is the statute of the Torah” and not “the statute of the cow,” we learn that the Torah and the red heifer are one matter, just as the Torah is called by Moses’s name, as it says Remember the Torah of Moses My servant (Malachi 3:22), so too the red heifer is called by his name. And the reason for both is one: Because 50 gates of understanding were created in the world, and all were given to Moses except one (Nedarim 38a). And through the 49 gates of understanding that he attained, he had an entrance to come into the secret of God, to interpret the Torah in 49 ways of purity and 49 ways of impurity, as it says And search for it as for hidden treasures (Proverbs 2:4) — the word treasures [matmonim] hints at twice 49 [the first two letters having a numerical of 49], monim [times] being two times, because through this, the words of God are pure words, refined sevenfold (Psalms 12:7), meaning seven times seven. Similarly, the reason for the red heifer is hidden from all living beings, even from Solomon, of whom it says he was wiser than any man (1 Kings 5:11), and it was revealed only to Moses through the 49 gates of understanding that he attained, as concluded in Yalkut Shimoni (658 on Psalms 12): Silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified sevenfold. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi interpreted this verse regarding the section of the red heifer, which has seven times seven: seven cows, seven sprinklings, seven burnings, seven washings, seven impure persons, seven pure persons, seven priests. If someone tells you they are lacking, tell him that Moses and Aaron were also included. We should examine what significance this number has that a verse about refined sevenfold was expounded upon it. Rather, certainly the opinion of this midrash is to give a reason for what is written in the midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 759 on Chukat 19): And they shall take to you a red heifer — to you I reveal the secret of the heifer, but to others it is a statute. And why was it hidden from all living beings? Because it contains the number 49, which hints that its matter can only be refined and purified through the 49 gates of understanding that were revealed only to Moses. Therefore, it remains a statute to others, even to Solomon. And in the Akedah he brought a midrash, which states that the cow was called “Batsheva, the mother of Solomon,” and he explained what he explained. And I say that just as a mother has authority over her son, so too the red heifer ruled over all of Solomon’s wisdom, for he could not penetrate its secret. This resolves why the phrase statute of the Torah is only stated here and in the portion of Matot regarding the laws of purifying vessels with the waters of sprinkling, because the purification of the red heifer in its entirety is compared to the Torah in its entirety through the hidden wisdom contained within it. A red heifer, unblemished. This can be compared to a maidservant’s son who soiled the king’s palace. They said, “Let the mother come and clean up her son’s filth” (Tanchuma Chukat 8). For anyone who wishes to eliminate any harmful growth, it is not enough to cut off the branches as long as its trunk remains alive in the ground — a root bearing gall and wormwood — for it will eventually regrow. But by eliminating the root, the branches will also fall, as it is written: I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath (Amos 2:9). This implies that destroying just the fruit is not enough. Therefore, our Sages taught (Avodah Zarah 45b): “One who uproots idolatry must root it out completely.” That is, one must investigate what cause led them to worship idols, for the cause is the root bearing gall and wormwood, and by eliminating the cause, the effect — that is, the consequence — will fall. The cause is likened to a mother who gives birth to the consequence. Therefore, God commanded the burning of the cow, the mother of the calf, so that we might learn from this the rule that one who uproots idolatry must thoroughly root it out, and then they will not return to their folly. In the portion of Ki Tisa (30:13), we elaborated on this, and there it is explained that the main cause was the abundance of silver and gold that the Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed upon them, as our Sages said (Berachot 32a): “You caused this to them, etc.” And since “this red red” gold brought them to this deed, therefore they should take a red heifer to burn and nullify this red appearance, and “he shall not multiply gold for himself” anymore, and then they will not come to commit such an act again. And this deep matter and the parable and its explanation, God showed in the incident of the [Golden] Calf, because it caused the impurity of the dead, since at the giving of the Torah, Israel became free upon the tablets — free from the Angel of Death (Shemot Rabbah 41:7). And the explanation is not that the intention was to completely eliminate death, but rather this concept of freedom is specifically from the Angel of Death, so that they would only die by “divine kiss” by God’s command. And then the dead would not be impure because the entire essence of the impurity of the dead comes from death that is through the Angel of Death, which comes from the side of impurity. But those who die by “divine kiss” have no aspect of impurity in them at all, as on the day that our holy Rabbi [Judah the Prince] died, they said that on that very day the laws of priesthood were suspended (Ketubot 103b, and see there in Tosafot), because there was no impurity there, therefore they permitted the priests to handle him. Thus we find that by receiving the Torah, they became free from the Angel of Death and impurity was nullified. And through the [Golden] Calf that they made, they returned to their corruption and brought the Angel of Death to rule over them. If so, the [Golden] Calf caused the impurity of the dead. Therefore, the mother [red heifer] comes to clean up her child’s filth — to remove the impurity through the ashes of the heifer. And this is a precious interpretation.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.”

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. 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.

And you shall give her to Elazar the priest, and he shall bring her outside the camp, and she shall be slaughtered before him.

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

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: “‘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. This [first heifer] was to be prepared by Eleazar, 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 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. 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. 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: “If the Heifer of Purification 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]: “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 ...

"And he shall bring it out" — [the subject is] the one who brings it out, or it is in the imperative; likewise "and he shall slaughter" — for the priest himself does not slaughter it, yet the slaughter must be witnessed before him [in his presence].

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 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. Some commentators note that seven ordinary priests were involved in preparing the ashes of the Red Heifer, one for each activity enumerated in this comment. 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.

And you shall give it to Eleazar. And not through Aaron, because he was a cause of the [golden] calf. And we find that Moses prayed that [Rabbi] Eliezer, who interprets the law of the [red] heifer, would be among his descendants. And here it also says Eleazar which implies that there is an allusion to the help [ezer] of God [El], blessed be He, for purification, as it is written And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, etc. (Ezekiel 36:25). For without the help of God, blessed be He, this purification alone would not have been effective for them. And since it says a heifer [parah] is two years old and a calf [eglah] is one year old, this implies that the cause is twice as great as the effect. Therefore, a person needs more alacrity to remove the cause, as mentioned. And the reason for the sprinkling on the third and seventh days is because the impurity gradually decreases, as they said (Moed Katan 27b), Three days for weeping, seven for eulogizing. Therefore, the sprinkling is at these two times.

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)

And Elazar the priest shall take some of her blood with his finger and sprinkle it toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times.

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).

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.

And Elazar, in his priestly dress, shall take of her blood with the finger of his right hand, without (first) containing it in a vessel, and shall sprinkle the border of fig branches, and (afterwards) from the midst of a vessel on one side towards the tabernacle of ordinance, with one dipping, seven times (shall he sprinkle).

And he shall burn the cow before his eyes: her hide and her flesh and her blood, together with her dung, he shall burn.

"And he shall burn the cow" — [the subject is] the one who burns it, and it must be witnessed before his eyes.

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. 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.

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.” 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.”

לעיניו, in the presence of Eleazar.

And the priest shall take cedar wood and hyssop and crimson thread, and he shall throw them into the midst of the burning of the cow.

"Cedar wood" — like [the cedar wood used] for the leper, and there I have alluded to a deeper meaning.

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.

And another priest shall take a piece of cedar wood and hyssop, and (wool) whose colour hath been changed to scarlet, and throw them into the midst of the burning of the heifer; and he shall enlarge the burning, that the ashes may be increased.

And the priest shall wash his garments and bathe his body in water, and afterward he shall enter the camp, and the priest shall be impure until the evening.

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). 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).

"He shall wash his garments" — [this refers to] the priest who burned [the cow]. — "And the priest shall be impure" — meaning he is already in a state of impurity. Some say he is impure until evening so that he may not eat of the sacred offerings.

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.

And the one who burns her shall wash his garments in water and bathe his body in water, and he shall be impure until the evening.

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.

And the priest who was employed in the burning shall wash his dress in forty satas of water, and his flesh in forty satas, and before his ablution shall be unclean until the evening.

And a man who is pure shall gather the ashes of the cow and store them outside the camp in a pure place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for safekeeping, as waters of sprinkling — it is a sin-offering.

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). 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”. 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).

"A ritually pure man" — this is not the priest who burned [the cow]. — "For purification water" [mei niddah] — its meaning is 'distance/separation,' as in מִנִּדֵּיכֶם [those who cast you out].

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. 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.

And the one who gathers the ashes of the cow shall wash his garments and shall be impure until the evening; and it shall be for the children of Israel and for the proselytes who convert among them a perpetual statute.

"And he shall be impure until evening" — since it was already stated that he must wash his garments, there is no need to mention that he must bathe in water [as it is implied]. — "And for the stranger who sojourns among them" — because the Land of Israel is holy, for the Glory is there.

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. 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 deduced by using logic unless they had been spelled out by the Torah. (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.”

Whoever touches the corpse of any human person shall be impure for seven days.

"For any human person" — whether a Jew or a gentile. — "Adam [person]" — and not an animal. — "And he shall be impure" — it is a future-tense verb, since the vav converts it [to future]; but in my view it is a past-tense verb [used in the sense of a standing rule: "he became impure"].

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).

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.”

He shall sprinkle upon himself on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall be pure; but if he does not sprinkle upon himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he shall not be pure.

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

"He shall purify himself with it" — meaning his impurity will depart through it; or it is like [the verse] "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean" [Ps. 51:9]. And it is well known that in the secret of reckoning, the third [day] is like the seventh.

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. 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.

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.”

Whoever touches a corpse — the person of a human being who has died — and does not sprinkle upon himself has defiled the Tabernacle of Hashem, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the waters of sprinkling were not sprinkled upon him, he remains impure — his impurity is still upon him.

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

"Because the purification water" — some commentators explain this as: only through the purification water shall he purify himself. — "Was not sprinkled upon him" — [the pronoun refers to] the water [sprinkled] upon him. — "Continually" [od] — always, as in "while the earth endures" [Gen. 8:22] where od means permanently.

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.

ולא יתחטא, את משכן ה' טמא, “if he fails to purify himself, he has contaminated the Tabernacle of the Lord.” The warning contained in this verse applies if the individual in question enters the courtyard of the Temple (Tabernacle) even if he had immersed himself in a ritual bath without having undergone the ritual of sprinkling the holy water with the ash upon himself on the third and seventh day of the purification process. The meaning of the word את in front of the word משכן is the same as if the Torah had written שמשכן ה' טמא. We have a similar construction in Psalms 71,18 where the psalmist writes לכל יבא גבורתך, where the meaning of the words is לכל שיבא גבורתך, “so that I can tell everyone (of the next generation) of Your mighty acts.” There are many other examples in the Bible where the letter ש has not been written but is implied. In verse 20 of our chapter the Torah changes its syntax writing: כי את מקדש ה' טמא, “for he has contaminated the Sanctuary of the Lord.” Why did the Torah once refer to the Sanctuary as משכן and once as מקדש? The reason the Torah uses both expressions is to tell us that although the Tabernacle was only a temporary structure to be replaced by a permanent one and I would have thought its sanctity is inferior to that of the Temple, this is not so. On the other hand, I could have thought that the Tabernacle was holier seeing it had been anointed with the holy oil of anointing as opposed to the Temple which was not so anointed. By writing both expressions the Torah equates both structures in their levels of sanctity. Nachmanides writes that in our verse (13) where the person who had failed to purify himself has entered the holy precincts he is guilty of the karet penalty even if he had immersed himself in a ritual bath beforehand seeing he had failed to apply the ritual involving the ash of the red cow. When the Torah appears to repeat itself in verse 20 the subject is not the entering of holy precincts before purification but the consuming of sacred food, meat from the offerings before one has completed the purification process involving the ash of the red cow. The difficulty is that the Torah did not need to tell us this as we know it already from Leviticus 7,20 where the karet penalty is spelled out for anyone eating sacred meat while in a state of ritual impurity [even a lesser degree than impurity caused through contact with a corpse. Ed.] Nachmanides therefore understands the word מקדש in verse 20 as similar to מ-קדשי, “the sacred things of,” similar to Numbers 18,29 את מקדשו ממנו,“sacred parts of it.” The portion here would then include both kinds of impurities resulting in the karet penalty for the person remaining in that state and becoming guilty of either transgression while contaminated. It is possible to understand the word משכן in verse 13 as a reference to the Tabernacle on earth, whereas the word מקדש is a reference to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions and the Torah teaches us that both Tabernacle and the eventual Temple were parallel in their function to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions. All of this is based on Exodus 15,17 מכון לשבתך פעלת ה' מקדש ד' כוננו ידיך, “the foundation of Your dwelling place that You Hashem have made, the Sanctuary my Lord which Your hands established.” You find משכן and מקדש equated in that verse. When someone introduces impurity into the Sanctuary or Tabernacle on earth he simultaneously defiles the Sanctuary, i.e. Tabernacle in the celestial regions. Ezekiel 45,4 speaks of מקדש למקדש, Nachmanides understands verse 20 as a reference to the concept expressed by the prophet, i.e. that the כנסת ישראל lends sanctity to the Temple in the terrestrial regions by taking up residence there. It is also possible that it relates to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions whose sanctity is enhanced through the כנסת ישראל, so that it will serve as Sanctuary for the highest attribute of the Lord, a concept expressed by Solomon in Kings I 8,14 when he said: בנה בניתי בית זבול לך, “I have surely built a residence for Your celestial region known as zevul.” This whole idea is expressed even more directly by Psalms 122,3 and explained in Taanit 5 ירושלים הבנויה כעיר שחוברה לה יחדו, “Jerusalem derives its sanctity because it is a city joined with its counterpart, i.e. celestial Jerusalem.” This is the mystical dimension of the very word ירושלים which, because of its plural ending, points at a dual city, one terrestrial the other celestial. It is similar to the word עינים, meaning “two eyes,” רגלים, meaning “two feet,“ and many other similar examples. Whenever the word ירושלם is spelled without the letter י it means that the missing letter is the reference to the celestial Jerusalem seeing that on the five occasions the word is spelled in the Bible with this letter this is a reminder that seeing the letter ה, “five,” is the last letter in the tetragrammaton, that in due course Jerusalem on earth and Jerusalem in the heaven will be joined in a real sense.

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

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

This is the Torah: a person who dies in a tent — everyone who enters the tent and everyone who is in the tent shall be impure for seven days.

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. 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 contact and by an ‘ohel,’ but does not mention [that it also conveys impurity to the person who] carries it. Our Rabbis, however, deduced it by a kal vachomer from [the law of] a dead animal, 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, 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].

"In a tent" — a house is like a tent; the verse specifies the tent only because Israel were [at that time] dwelling in tents, just as [elsewhere it says] "whoever slaughters an ox or a sheep or a goat in the camp" [Lev. 17:3], referring to the specific conditions of that time. — "And everything that is in the tent" — referring to garments.

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. 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. However, in the Sifri on our verse I have se...

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, “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)

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. 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.

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. 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.]

And every open earthen vessel that has no cord-sealed cover fastened over it is impure.

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). 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."

"A sealed cover" [tzamid patil] — [this means] two cords.

And every earthen vessel which hath no covering fastened upon its mouth, which would have kept it separate from the uncleanness, is defiled by the uncleanness of the air which toucheth its mouth, and its interior, and not the outside of it (only).

And whoever touches, in the open field, one slain by the sword, or a corpse, or a human bone, or a grave, shall be impure for seven days.

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 Sages 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, 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:” “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”]. And since Scripture says ‘pnei’ hasadeh [literally: “the face” of the field] and does not [just] say “the field”, Rabbi Yishmael further interpreted it 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 w...

"Or a grave" — of a human being.

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, “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 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 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.

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.”

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.

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.

And they shall take for the impure person some of the dust of the burning of the sin-offering, and spring water shall be placed upon it in a vessel.

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 taught 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.

The vav [introducing the clause] — "They shall take for the impure person" — behold, here is the explanation of how he is to purify himself.

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)

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)

And a pure man shall take hyssop and dip it in the water and sprinkle it upon the tent and upon all the vessels and upon the persons who were there, and upon the one who touched a bone, or one slain, or a corpse, or a grave.

"A ritually pure man" — and it is most fitting that he be a priest.

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.

And let a man, a priest, who is clean, take three branches of hyssop bound. together, and dip (them) in the water at the time of receiving the uncleanness, and sprinkle the tent and all its vessels, and the men who are in it, or upon him who hath touched the bone of a living man that hath been severed from him, and hath fallen, or him who hath. been slain with the sword, or hath died by the plague, or a grave, or a wrapper, or a bier.

And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure person on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall purify him on the seventh day; and he shall wash his garments and bathe in water, and he shall be pure at evening.

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 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 touched the grave.

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.”

But a man who becomes impure and does not sprinkle upon himself — that person shall be cut off from the midst of the congregation, because he has defiled the sanctuary of Hashem; the waters of sprinkling were not sprinkled upon him — he is impure.

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.

HE HATH DEFILED THE SANCTUARY OF THE ETERNAL. Scripture mentioned this [punishment of] excision without explanation, saying, he hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Eternal, 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. 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, 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 dead 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, 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. 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’vurathecha [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 hand [which is to be understood as: v’chol — asher — yesh lo — and all ‘that’ he had he put into his hand]; eth haderech yeilchu bah [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 Eternal is “‘when’ he has defiled the S...

"And a man who becomes impure" — the Torah already mentioned [above] that whoever touches a dead person [and does not purify himself] shall be cut off; now it warns [additionally] concerning [contact with] a bone and a grave.

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).

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.

And this shall be for them a perpetual statute. And the one who sprinkles the waters of sprinkling shall wash his garments, and whoever touches the waters of sprinkling shall be impure until the evening.

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

"He shall be impure until evening" — and he is not purified until he has bathed.

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. 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.]

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.

And he who sprinkles the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes. Most commentators have gone out to gather [explanations] but have not found a sufficient reason why the [red] heifer, which purifies the impure, would make the pure impure. Now, incline your ear and listen, for we find that no food is susceptible to impurity until water falls upon it. How is it possible that water, whose source is purity, would cause impurity? Rather, the explanation of the matter is as follows: It is natural that everything is only affected by its opposite, not by what is of its own kind. This is similar to how the evil inclination provokes Israel more than the nations, and Torah scholars more than anyone else (Sukkah 52a), because they are all opposite to it, therefore it wants to overcome them. This is the reason why darkness intensifies just before dawn, because everything is affected specifically by its opposite. Therefore, no food or seed is affected by impurity to make an impression until water, which is all purity, comes upon it. Then the impurity wants to defeat the purity, overcomes it, and makes an impression on it. Similarly, the water of sprinkling contains water which is all purity, and the ashes of the [red] heifer which is all impurity, and they are mixed together. Therefore, if the water of sprinkling is thrown on an impure person, the person is not affected by the ash because it is of his kind [both being impure], but he is affected by the water which is opposite to him, because he is impure and the water is pure. Therefore, the water acts upon him and overcomes the impurity. But a pure person who carries the water of sprinkling is not affected by the water because it is of his kind, as both are pure, but he is affected by the ash which is opposite to him, because he is pure and the ash is impure. Therefore, the ash acts upon him and makes an impression to make him impure. And if you ask, if so, why do I need the ash? Let them be purified with water without ash. The answer to this matter is that there is a need for sprinkling the ash upon him, for he cannot be purified until he knows the source of the impurity and strives to remove the cause, saying, “Here is your bill and its receipt with it.” And in this mixture, the power of the water comes to inform us that they overcome the source of impurity. And by way of allusion, I have a place to [explain it], based on the words of the author of the Akedah, who interpreted all matters of the red heifer as representing the ways of repentance, as explained in his book. Along this approach, it is reasonable to understand that the healing of the soul is like the healing of the body, for a medicinal drink that benefits a sick person can harm a healthy person. As our Sages said (Taanit 11b): “A scholar who sits in fasting, a dog should eat his meal.” This shows that fasts defile the pure and purify the defiled. Meaning, for one who has already been defiled by sin, fasts are necessary for him, as in the statement our Sages made (Yoma 86b): “What constitutes a true penitent? One who encounters the same situation where he sinned, and abstains.” Rabbi Yehudah explained: “With the same woman, at the same time, and in the same place.” For at the place of sin and the gate through which one transgressed, there must be his strength to overcome his evil inclination that has already tasted the flavor of sin there and seeks to repeat it. This is what is meant by the verse: And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘You are the children of the living God’ (Hosea 2:1). Specifically in the place of sin, where it was said to them, You are not My people, in that very place will be the repentance, and there it will be said to them, You are the children of the living God. And some say that this is the intention of our Sages’ statement (Berakhot 34b), “In the place where ba’alei teshuvah [penitents] stand, completely righteous individuals cannot stand,” because the ba’al teshuvah needs to stand in the place where he stood initially and to be in seclusion with the same woman with whom he sinned, but for the completely righteous person, such seclusion is forbidden because it is prohibited to bring one’s soul into temptation. Thus, seclusion — which is the essence of teshuvah — defiles the pure and purifies the defiled. Similarly, every ba’al teshuvah needs to lean to the opposite extreme in the matter in which he sinned in order to reach the middle path, like craftsmen who want to straighten a crooked piece of wood must bend it to the other side. But for the completely righteous person, this approach is not appropriate; rather, he must always walk the middle path, as it is said Be not overly righteous… And do not commit much evil (Ecclesiastes 7:16-17). And some say that this matter is alluded to in the casting of the cedar wood and hyssop into the burning of the red heifer, meaning the casting away of extremes — neither raising oneself up like a cedar nor lowering oneself excessively like a hyssop. Therefore, the red heifer defiles and purifies, so that we may learn from it that in matters of teshuvah, there are several things that defile and purify simultaneously, and the difference comes from the side of the recipients, as mentioned. And this is the correct and clear approach.

And whatever the impure person touches shall be impure, and the person who touches it shall be impure until the evening.

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 הנגעת AND THE SOUL THAT TOUCHETH him that hath become unclean by reason of a corpse, 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: 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. 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). 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. לא עלה עליה על [A COW] UPON WHICH NEVER CAME A YOKE — just as they cast off themselves the yoke of Heaven. 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). ושרף את הפרה AND ONE SHALL BURN THE COW, just as the calf was burnt (Exodus 32:20). 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. למשמרת [IT SHALL BE] KEPT [...

"And everything the impure person touches shall be impure" — that is, one who is impure from a corpse, or from a bone, or from a grave. — "Shall be impure until evening" — and then [the person] shall bathe.

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 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.

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.”

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).