Chukat | The Red Heifer (19:1-22)
Text file
***************************************************
Contribution by Dr. James Cleeman
in honor of Mr. Aryeh Fund,
distinguished alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion
and outstanding Ba'al Chesed.
***************************************************
1: And the Lord spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying:
2: This is the statute of the law which the Lord has commanded, saying:
Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer, faultless, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.
3: And you shall give it to Elazar the priest,
and it shall be brought forth outside the camp, and it shall be slain before his face.
4: And Elazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger,
and sprinkle of its blood toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times.
5: And the heifer shall be burnt in his sight;
its skin, and its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall be burnt.
6: And the priest shall take cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet,
and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.
7: Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water,
and afterward he may come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the evening.
8: And he that burns it shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the evening.
9: And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer,
and lay them up without the camp in a clean place,
and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of sprinkling;
it is a purification from sin.
10: And he that gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening;
and it shall be to the children of Israel, and to the stranger that sojourns among them, for a statute forever.
11: He that touches the dead, even any man's dead body,
shall be unclean seven days;
12: the same shall purify himself therewith on the third day and on the seventh day –
and he shall be clean;
but if he purify not himself the third day and the seventh day –
he shall not be clean.
13: Whoever touches the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifies not himself – he has defiled the Mishkan of the Lord; that soul shall be cut off from Israel; because the water of sprinkling was not dashed against him, he shall be unclean;
his uncleanness is yet upon him.
14: This is the law:
when a man dies in a tent,
everyone that comes into the tent and everything that is in the tent shall be unclean seven days.
15: And every open vessel, which has no covering close-bound upon it, is unclean.
16: And whoever in the open field touches
one that is slain with a sword, or one that dies of himself, or a bone of a man, or a grave,
shall be unclean seven days.
17: And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin
and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel.
18: And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water,
and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there,
and upon him that touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave.
19: And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day;
and on the seventh day he shall purify him; and he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at evening.
20: But the man that shall be unclean and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly,
because he has defiled the sanctuary of the Lord;
the water of sprinkling has not been dashed against him: he is unclean.
21: And it shall be a perpetual statute to them;
and he that sprinkles the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes;
and he that touches the water of sprinkling shall be unclean until evening.
22: And whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean;
and the soul that touches him shall be unclean until evening.
I. The structure of the section
Like other halakhic sections, the section dealing with the red heifer is built in the same way that many other literary units of the Bible of different literary genres are built. It is divided into two halves of equal length, between which there is a "central axis," the role of which is to shift the theme of the first half to that of the second half.
In our description of the structure of the section, we will make use of the transcription found above.
The first half
The first half of the section is comprised of ten verses (1-10), containing 146 words. After verse 1, which serves as a prologue – "And the Lord spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying"[1] – the introduction to this half appears in verse 2:
This is the statute of the law[2] which the Lord has commanded, saying:
At the end of this half, at the end of verse 10, the conclusion is similar in its wording to the introduction:
And it shall be to the children of Israel, and to the stranger that sojourns among them, for a statute forever.
The issue that is discussed in this half is the process of preparing the ashes of the heifer. At the beginning of the section, we find a description of the heifer that fulfills the necessary conditions for getting the process moving:
2: …a red heifer, faultless, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.[3]
Close to the end of the half a description is given of the end of the process:
… and lay them up outside the camp in a clean place,
and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of sprinkling;[4] it is a purification from sin.
The main part of the first half is dedicated to a description of the various actions that must be performed in order to reach the end of the process – ashes of a red heifer that are kept for the water of sprinkling. They are:
1. Taking the red heifer out of the camp and slaughtering it (v. 3)
2. Sprinkling of its blood seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting (v.4)
3. Burning the heifer in its entirety (v. 5)
4. Casting cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet into the burning of the heifer (v. 6)
5. Gathering the ashes of the heifer and placing them in safekeeping
Regarding the people who perform acts 3-5, it is stated that they are impure until the evening and that they must wash their clothing and bathe their bodies in water in order to clean themselves (vv. 7-8, 10).
What is strikingly absent in this half is an explanation of the ultimate purpose of all the actions that the Torah commands in these verses. Toward the end of the half it is stated that the ashes are intended for "the water of sprinkling" – but for what is such water needed, upon whom is it sprinkled, and for what purpose? Nothing is said about this here, even by way of a hint or allusion.
The central axis
The central axis is comprised of three verses containing 53 words. It is divided into two parts, almost equal in length, which open with similar words. The first part, vv. 11-12, reveals the "secret" that was not revealed to us in the first half:
He that touches the dead, even any man's dead body,
shall be unclean seven days;
the same shall purify himself therewith on the third day and on the seventh day – and he shall be clean.
Thus we see that the water of sprinkling into which is mixed the ashes of the red heifer are used to sprinkle on an unclean person who came into contact with a corpse, his purification being dependent upon this water being sprinkled on him on the third and the seventh day after he became unclean.[5]
The second half of the central axis, v. 13, clarifies the severity of an unclean man's failure to purify himself with the water of sprinkling, and thus we understand the importance of the ashes of the heifer and the process of its preparation:
Whoever touches the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifies not himself –
he has defiled the Mishkan of the Lord; that soul shall be cut off from Israel…
The root chet-tet-alef (in the sense of chitui, "purification"), which appears as a noun at the end of the first half (end of v. 9), "it is a purification [chatat] from sin" (= the heifer, as is explained in v. 17), appears three times as a verb in the central axis – yitchata, "purify." The phrase, "water of sprinkling," which also appears at the end of the first half (in v. 9), appears once again at the end of the central axis.
The central axis, as much as it clarifies the objective of the vigorous activity described in the first half, does not give sufficiently clear guidelines regarding use of the "water of sprinkling" for the purification of one who contracted corpse impurity.[6] First of all, it is not clear how the "water of sprinkling" is made with the heifer's ashes. Second, it is not clear how the purification process itself on the third and the seventh days is to be conducted. Third, does purification by way of the water of sprinkling suffice to purify the unclean person from his impurity? All of these questions and additional questions (connected to the ways one can contract corpse impurity) are answered in the second half, which is an expansion upon and elaboration of what is stated in the central axis.
The second half
The second half of the section is comprised of nine verses (14-22), containing 146 words, precisely the same number of words found in the first half. This half has an introduction:
This is the law[7]… And towards the end of the second half, there is a concluding formula that is reminiscent of the concluding formula found in the first half:
21: And it shall be a perpetual statute to them. After the concluding formula, there is an appendix to the laws found in this half (in verses 21b-22). As we shall explain below, the nature of the laws mentioned in the appendix does not allow them to be included in the body of the second half, and the conventional literary solution is such situations is to bring them at the end of the section, after the formal conclusion.[8] The body of the second half is divided according to its contents into four parts:
When an entity - whether a person, an implement, food, or liquid - touches the bodies of the bulls and the goats that are burnt, even after they have been taken out of the Temple Courtyard, everything is pure. (Hilkhot Para Aduma 5:7) The goat that is sent to Azazel: Similarly, if they would touch the goat sent to Azazel itself while it is being carried there, they would be pure. For these sacrificial animals impart impurity only to one who is involved with carrying them, as it is stated: "The one who burns them shall wash his clothes" (Vayikra 16:28). One who touches, by contrast, is pure.[30] (Hilkhot Para Aduma 5:7) What is the meaning of this shared law? What it means is that it is not the animals that cause the impurity, but rather the actions that are done with them. If so, this is a special impurity, the result of human activity, and not of contact with something that imparts impurity.[31] The obvious question arises: What is the reason for this special impurity specifically in these three cases? What is the common denominator between them? A hint to the answer is found in the Ramban's commentary to the matter of the goat that is sent off to Azazel (Vayikra 16:8, s.v. ve-goral echad, end): But regarding the goat that is sent to Azazel they [= the nations of the world] taunt us, because they think that we are acting as they do [= offering sacrifices to the satyrs in the field], and similarly regarding the red heifer, because it is prepared outside the camp, and its purpose is similar to that of the goat that is sent to Azazel, to remove the spirit of impurity… And from this you will understand the reason for washing the clothes of the one who sends the goat to Azazel and of the one who burns the heifer, and that which the Rabbis said about washing the clothes in the cases of the bullocks and goats that are burnt. That is to say, the common denominator of the three cases is that they involve "quasi-service" that is performed outside the Temple. That which the Ramban alluded to in brief and in an obscure manner was spelled out by R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk in his book, Meshekh Chokhma, on our parasha: Know that all service performed outside the Temple renders the clothes of the persons performing that service impure, and that one who occupies himself in such service is unclean and may not enter the camp of the Shekhina. Thus we see that none of the three – the goat that is sent to Azazel, the red heifer, or the bullocks and goats that are burnt – in themselves impart impurity. Rather, the service that is done with them outside the Temple leads to the impurity of those occupied in that service. In this way the Torah alludes that it is only necessity that causes these services to be performed outside the Temple, but this necessity exacts a price – namely, the impurity.[32] Now the question arises, why doesn't the breaking of the neck of the calf or the slaughter of the leper's bird lead to impurity. Surely those too involve "quasi-service" that is performed outside the Temple? R. Meir Simcha answers this question later in the passage: It is precisely those that start inside [the Temple], like the one who sends off the goat to Azazel [= who leaves the Temple with it after the High Priest confessed his sins over it], and those who take out the bullocks that are burnt [= after they were slaughtered and their blood was sprinkled in the Temple], and so too those who occupy themselves with the red heifer whose blood must be sprinkled toward the front of the Tent of Meeting [= and thus its connection to the Temple has been clarified].[33] But in the case of the birds of the leper, the priest does not become unclean, because they are not connected to the Temple at all. The same applies to the calf whose neck is broken. This is consistent with other laws in the Torah, e.g., a non-Jew does not impart impurity, and his zav discharges are pure, because impurity is found only in a place where there is sanctity. It is the distancing from the Temple that is fundamentally connected to it that causes impurity. Only in a place where there is sanctity is there also its negative image, impurity, which stems from the opposition to sanctity or distancing from it. But actions that are performed outside the Temple, with no connection to it, even though they look like sacrificial service performed outside the Temple, do not impart impurity, because they do not express distancing from the holy. It is clear now that there is no contradiction between the laws of impurity that apply to all who occupy themselves with the red heifer from beginning to end, and the objective of preparing the heifer – to purify those who became unclean with corpse impurity. It is not the red heifer that imparts impurity, but rather it is the actions of those occupied with the heifer outside the Temple that cause the impurity. This is not a law unique to those occupied with the heifer, but rather a general law that applies to all those who perform elements of the sacrificial "service" outside the Temple.[34] To complete this study, see also the discussion regarding the impurity that accompanies the water of sprinkling in our study of Parashat Chukat, in Sefer Iyunim Be-Farashat Ha-Shavua, third series, pp. 291-300. (Translated by David Strauss)
[1] Such a prologue, in which Moshe and Aharon are mentioned as the addressees of God's words, is found at the beginning of most of the sections dealing with purity and impurity in the book of Vayikra (chapters 11-15). In our study of Parashiyot Tazria-Metzora, section 12, we noted that the section dealing with the red heifer belongs to those sections, and we explained why it was uprooted from its place there. In our study of Parashat Chukat, first series, at the end of section 1 (p. 218), we explained why it was placed specifically in our parasha (in accordance with the principle that that there is no chronological order to the sections of the Torah). In the present study, we will not return to that discussion. [2] a. The phrase "the statute of the law [chukat ha-torah]" appears in one other place in the Torah, in Bemidbar 31:21: "And Elazar the priest said to the men of war that went to the battle: This is the statute of the law which the Lord has commanded Moshe." In the continuation (v. 23), mention is made of the need to purify the spoils of war in water of sprinkling. b. The term chuka is explained in the gemara in several places (Yoma 40a; ibid. 60a; Kiddushin 14a; and elsewhere) in relation to a process that is commanded by the Torah and that must be performed "in the prescribed order; if one service was done out of order before another one, it is as if it had not been done at all" (mishna and baraita, Yoma 60a). This explanation fits in well in our parasha, both with regard to the preparation of the red heifer described in vv. 1-10 and with regard to the purification process of one who contracted corpse impurity described in vv. 17-19. In Menachot 27a it is stated in the mishna that the three species mentioned in connection with the heifer – the cedar-wood, the hyssop and the scarlet – are indispensable and that the seven sprinklings of the blood of the heifer are indispensable, and the gemara explains that these laws follow from the term chuka that is used in connection with the red heifer. See also Menachot 29a. c. The term torah in our context – and similarly in v. 14: "This is the law [ha-torah]: When a man dies in a tent…" refers to a set of instructions governing a specific halakhic issue (and not to the entire Torah). This is true in many other places in the Torah as well. In our context, the reference is to the "law of corpse impurity and the purification from it." Therefore, "this is the statute of the law" means: This is the set of actions that must be performed [= chuka] in the framework of the instructions [= ha-tora] regarding the laws of corpse impurity and purification from it. This is the way that the Rashbam explains v. 2. d. The words of the midrash that are cited by Rashi change the meaning of both of these words: chuka is understood to mean a "decree," the reason for which cannot be understood, and torah is understood as referring to Moshe's Torah in its entirety. [3] From the words of Chazal in several places (see, for example, Mishna Para 3:5), it would appear that a blemish-free red heifer that meets all of the halakhic conditions was exceedingly rare, and that over the course of history, from the time of Moshe until the destruction of the Second Temple, less than ten such animals were found. [4] Mei nida means "water of sprinkling" (R. Saadya Gaon, Rashi). Rashi explains that it is similar in meaning to: "and they cast [va-yadu] a stone upon me" (Eikha 3:53). Ibn Ezra explains that mei nida is water for one who is menudeh (distanced, unclean); the water that purifies him (so it would appear from his brief comment). The first explanation is more persuasive. [5] The need for the application of the water of sprinkling on two occasions, on the third day and on the seventh day, is stated unequivocally in v. 19, and therefore this is the way that we must also understand both parts of v. 12. [6] The general instructions that appear in the central axis do not accord with the nature of the first half, which provides very detailed instructions regarding the preparation of the heifer's ashes. The reason for this is that the central axis serves as a transitional stage between the first half and the second half, as will be explained below. [7] For the meaning of the term "tora" here and in verse 2, see note 2c. [8] This phenomenon is found in many halakhic sections, especially in the book of Vayikra. We noted this in our study of Parashat Tetzaveh, first series, note 22. The appendix found in our parasha should be added to the list of examples presented there. [9] Nevertheless, there is a slight difference between the two verses. Verse 13 states: "Whoever touches the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifies not himself…," whereas verse 20 states: "But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself…" This difference stems from the fact that the second half specifies other ways of contracting corpse impurity, in addition to touching. [10] Many laws are added in the first part: Corpse impurity is contracted not only through touch, but also by being in the same tent as the corpse; the impurity is imparted not only by the entire corpse, but even by a bone and even by a grave; the impurity is contracted not only by humans, but also by vessels. The following laws are added in the third section: The sprinkling must be done with a hyssop; the one who sprinkles must be clean; the purification requires washing one's clothes and bathing one's body in water. [11] In Yoma 67b it is stated: "'And My statutes you shall keep' (Vayikra 18) – such commandments to which Satan objects, they are [those relating to] the putting on of sha'atnez, the chalitza [performed] by a sister-in-law, the purification of the leper, and the goat that is sent off to Azazel." However, in some manuscripts, as well as in the commentary of Rabbeinu Chananel, ad loc., the list includes additional examples, including the calf whose neck is broken and the mixture of meat and milk. The Rambam (end of Hilkhot Me'ila) cites this list and includes the red heifer, as does the Ramban in his commentary to Vayikra 16:8. [12] In his commentary to Vayikra 16:8, s.v. ve-goral echad la-azazel, toward the end. [13] This stands in contrast to the words of the Ramban cited earlier, but accords with what the Rambam writes in Hilkhot Para Aduma 4:3 – that "the expression 'sweet savor' was not stated with regard to it." [14] Such as the possibility of redeeming a red heifer if a more attractive one is found, even if no blemish was found in the first one (Rambam, Hilkhot Para Aduma 1:10). [15] In Mishna Para 2:3, it is stated: "All blemishes that cause consecrated animals to be invalid cause also the [red] heifer to be invalid." [16] The Rambam writes (Hilkhot Para Aduma 4:17): "All of the activities performed with the red heifer from the beginning to the end must be performed only during the day [= like sacrifices brought in the Temple] and by male priests." The source for this ruling is Mishna Para 4:4. [17] Rambam, Hilkhot Para Aduma 10:6, based on Mishna Para 12:10. [18] Chazal commonly refer to the red heifer as the "chatat heifer," based on the verse: "it is a chatat." Its ashes are also referred to as "chatat ashes," and the water of sprinkling is called "chatat water." [19] Regarding the necessity of preparing the ashes of the red heifer outside the Temple, see note 31. [20] Rashi's source seems to be the Talmudic passage in Yoma 67b, cited above in note 11, but no mention is made there of the red heifer, not in the printed version of the Gemara, nor in the commentary of Rabbeinu Chananel, who cites a different reading of the Gemara, and not in the many other versions of the text cited in Dikdukei Sefarim. However, the matter is strange: Not only Rashi, but also the Rambam at the end of Hilkhot Me'ila and the Ramban in his commentary to Vayikra 16:8 include the red heifer in the list of examples of statutes according to the Gemara! The absence of this example from the Gemara in Yoma raises also a substantive question. [21] The purification of the leper is in fact one of the examples brought in the Gemara in Yoma 67b of statutes that Satan and the nations of the world use to taunt Israel. [22] The author of the Chinukh took this last reason from the words of the Ramban cited in the previous section. [23] The editor of the Midrash, R. Shlomo Buber, asks: "I don't understand why he brought this… in the name of R. Yitzchak, for it is an explicit Mishna (Para 4:4)." Indeed, parallel midrashim cite the mishna. But the last clause, "while it itself purifies the unclean," is not found in the mishna, and perhaps this is what R. Yitzchak adds. [24] Tanchuma (Buber), Chukat 23 (and parallels), brings four mitzvot that have an internal logical contradiction, and therefore "the evil inclination objects to them, and regarding each of them the word 'statute' is used." Upon closer examination, however, only one mitzva – the red heifer – raises real difficulty, whereas the other three – the prohibition of one's brother's wife as opposed to levirate marriage, the prohibition of sha'atnez as opposed to the mitzva of tzitzit, and the goat that is sent to Azazel, which renders its sender unclean, but at the same time atones for the sins of Israel – are not as difficult as the red heifer. [25] Brought also by Rashi in Beitza 33a. [26] According to the Halakha, the one who burns the red heifer must also be a priest; it is not at all clear why this is not stated in the verse. [27] We have explained the law stated in the mishna: "All who are engaged in the preparation of the [red] heifer, from the beginning until the end, render their garments unclean," in accordance with what appears to us to be the plain meaning of the verses and in the wake of the words of the Rambam. The Sifrei (124), however, learns the source of this law in a different manner: "'Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water' (v. 7) – the verse comes to teach about the one who casts the hyssop, that he renders his clothes unclean… 'And he that burns it shall wash his clothes' (v. 8) – the verse comes to teach about the one that burns the heifer, that he renders his clothes unclean. Surely, had it not stated [the law of the burner], I could derive it [by way of a kal va-chomer argument]: If the one who casts the hyssop [whose service is short and light] renders his clothes unclean, the one who burns the heifer [whose service is extended and of critical importance] should certainly render his clothes unclean. If I can derive this [by way of a kal va-chomer argument], what is taught by the verse: 'And he that burns it shall wash his clothes'? The verse comes and teaches about those occupied in the heifer from the beginning until the end that they must wash their clothes, bathe their bodies, and wait for nightfall." [28] The source for these words of the Rambam is the plain meaning of the Biblical text, as the Kesef Mishneh argues in the name of Ri Corcus: "Since it is written: 'And he that gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes,' the implication is that there is no impurity for one who occupies himself with it afterwards." The words of Rashi (Bekhorot 23a, s.v. ve-i amrat tum'a) suggest that he disagrees with the Rambam and maintains that the ashes impart impurity. But the words of the Rambam appear to be correct, for the division of the ashes and setting them aside for safekeeping are not included among the services explicitly mentioned in the Torah in connection with the preparation of the red heifer, which impart impurity, as argued by Ri Corcus, and touching the ashes is also not included in what is stated at the end of the section in verse 21: "and he that sprinkles the water of sprinkling… and he that touches the water of sprinkling," for the ashes are not the water of sprinkling. [29] V. 21 mentions for the first time impurity contracted through touch. Those who occupy themselves in the preparation of the heifer become unclean because of their occupation, even without touching (and the heifer does not render unclean by way of touch one who is not occupied in its preparation; see below). Proof to this may be brought from the Rambam's definition: "Who is considered as 'one who burns' it? Anyone who helps in burning it, for example, one who turns over the meat, one who places wood upon it, one who fans the fire, one who stirs the coals so that the fire will burn, and the like.' None of these people touch the heifer. [30] This law that is shared by the three "who occupy themselves" with consecrated animals appears in Mishna Para 8:3: "He who burns the red heifer or the bullocks [of the sin-offerings that are burnt] and he that sends the goat off to Azazel, render garments unclean. The red heifer, however, and the bullocks and the goat that is sent off do not themselves convey uncleanness to garments. Well may it say [= the garment to the person]: Those that cause you to be unclean do not cause me to be unclean, but you have caused me to be unclean." The joining of these three laws – the red heifer, the bullocks and the goat – in one Mishna stems from the saying that is shared by the three which is a recurring motif in that chapter of the Mishna. But the joining of the three in one chapter of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah in Hilkhot Para Aduma testifies to the fact the Rambam saw these three laws as expressions of the same fundamental law. [31] See our remarks in note 29, and the words of the Rambam cited there. [32] What necessitates that each of these services be performed specifically outside of the Temple is as follows: • The goat that is sent off to Azazel – by its very nature this service must be performed outside the Temple. • The burning of the sin-offerings that must be burnt – this too cannot be performed in the Temple, because only a burnt-offering is burnt in its entirety on the altar, and not a sin-offering. Since burning is a law applying to these sin-offerings, but it is not part of their service, it must be done outside the Temple. • The burning of the red heifer must be done outside the Temple, for it is not burning for "sweet savor," but rather burning for the sake of using the ashes, and this cannot be done on the altar. Apart from this, the heifer is not consecrated for the altar but rather for the upkeep of the altar, and therefore even its slaughter cannot be performed in the Temple courtyard. Hence, all of the services performed in its regard must be done outside the Temple. [33] "If he sprinkled the blood, but did not direct it to the Sanctuary, it is invalid. For it is stated: 'Toward the front of the Tent of Meeting" – this implies that he should direct it toward the Sanctuary and see it. Similarly, if he slaughtered it or burnt it not opposite the Sanctuary, it is invalid, as it is stated: 'He shall slaughter it before him'" (Rambam, Hilkhot Para Aduma 4:5). [34] Thus, it is not because the red heifer comes to purify the unclean that it renders unclean those who occupy themselves with it, but rather these are two separate laws and there is no connection between them. It should be noted that both the Rambam and the Ramban, even though they discuss the fact that the red heifer is included among the statutes with which the nations of the world taunt Israel, nowhere mention the seeming logical contradiction that the heifer renders the clean impure while it purifies the unclean. They do not mention this because they do not see in this a contradiction, and it is upon their words that we have based our explanation of the matter. The author of the Chinukh, who saw this logical "contradiction" as the great difficulty in the section dealing with the red heifer (his words were brought above in section 3), sensed that the contradiction could be reconciled in the manner presented here, but immediately retreated from it. His argument is unclear: "But the real marvel, according to what I have heard, is that it purifies the unclean, but renders unclean those who participate in its burning. Even though this is the law regarding all the bullock and goat sin-offerings that are burnt, that he who burns them renders his clothes unclean when he burns them until they turn into ashes, nevertheless their ashes [= of these sin-offerings] do not purify."
This is the law[7]… And towards the end of the second half, there is a concluding formula that is reminiscent of the concluding formula found in the first half:
21: And it shall be a perpetual statute to them. After the concluding formula, there is an appendix to the laws found in this half (in verses 21b-22). As we shall explain below, the nature of the laws mentioned in the appendix does not allow them to be included in the body of the second half, and the conventional literary solution is such situations is to bring them at the end of the section, after the formal conclusion.[8] The body of the second half is divided according to its contents into four parts:
- What are the ways of contracting corpse impurity – who and what become unclean, and what connections to the corpse cause impurity (vv. 14-16)
- How is the water of sprinkling prepared (v. 17)
- How does one purify and how does one become purified (vv. 18-19)
- The punishment of one who does not undergo purification and defiles God's sanctuary (v. 20)
When an entity - whether a person, an implement, food, or liquid - touches the bodies of the bulls and the goats that are burnt, even after they have been taken out of the Temple Courtyard, everything is pure. (Hilkhot Para Aduma 5:7) The goat that is sent to Azazel: Similarly, if they would touch the goat sent to Azazel itself while it is being carried there, they would be pure. For these sacrificial animals impart impurity only to one who is involved with carrying them, as it is stated: "The one who burns them shall wash his clothes" (Vayikra 16:28). One who touches, by contrast, is pure.[30] (Hilkhot Para Aduma 5:7) What is the meaning of this shared law? What it means is that it is not the animals that cause the impurity, but rather the actions that are done with them. If so, this is a special impurity, the result of human activity, and not of contact with something that imparts impurity.[31] The obvious question arises: What is the reason for this special impurity specifically in these three cases? What is the common denominator between them? A hint to the answer is found in the Ramban's commentary to the matter of the goat that is sent off to Azazel (Vayikra 16:8, s.v. ve-goral echad, end): But regarding the goat that is sent to Azazel they [= the nations of the world] taunt us, because they think that we are acting as they do [= offering sacrifices to the satyrs in the field], and similarly regarding the red heifer, because it is prepared outside the camp, and its purpose is similar to that of the goat that is sent to Azazel, to remove the spirit of impurity… And from this you will understand the reason for washing the clothes of the one who sends the goat to Azazel and of the one who burns the heifer, and that which the Rabbis said about washing the clothes in the cases of the bullocks and goats that are burnt. That is to say, the common denominator of the three cases is that they involve "quasi-service" that is performed outside the Temple. That which the Ramban alluded to in brief and in an obscure manner was spelled out by R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk in his book, Meshekh Chokhma, on our parasha: Know that all service performed outside the Temple renders the clothes of the persons performing that service impure, and that one who occupies himself in such service is unclean and may not enter the camp of the Shekhina. Thus we see that none of the three – the goat that is sent to Azazel, the red heifer, or the bullocks and goats that are burnt – in themselves impart impurity. Rather, the service that is done with them outside the Temple leads to the impurity of those occupied in that service. In this way the Torah alludes that it is only necessity that causes these services to be performed outside the Temple, but this necessity exacts a price – namely, the impurity.[32] Now the question arises, why doesn't the breaking of the neck of the calf or the slaughter of the leper's bird lead to impurity. Surely those too involve "quasi-service" that is performed outside the Temple? R. Meir Simcha answers this question later in the passage: It is precisely those that start inside [the Temple], like the one who sends off the goat to Azazel [= who leaves the Temple with it after the High Priest confessed his sins over it], and those who take out the bullocks that are burnt [= after they were slaughtered and their blood was sprinkled in the Temple], and so too those who occupy themselves with the red heifer whose blood must be sprinkled toward the front of the Tent of Meeting [= and thus its connection to the Temple has been clarified].[33] But in the case of the birds of the leper, the priest does not become unclean, because they are not connected to the Temple at all. The same applies to the calf whose neck is broken. This is consistent with other laws in the Torah, e.g., a non-Jew does not impart impurity, and his zav discharges are pure, because impurity is found only in a place where there is sanctity. It is the distancing from the Temple that is fundamentally connected to it that causes impurity. Only in a place where there is sanctity is there also its negative image, impurity, which stems from the opposition to sanctity or distancing from it. But actions that are performed outside the Temple, with no connection to it, even though they look like sacrificial service performed outside the Temple, do not impart impurity, because they do not express distancing from the holy. It is clear now that there is no contradiction between the laws of impurity that apply to all who occupy themselves with the red heifer from beginning to end, and the objective of preparing the heifer – to purify those who became unclean with corpse impurity. It is not the red heifer that imparts impurity, but rather it is the actions of those occupied with the heifer outside the Temple that cause the impurity. This is not a law unique to those occupied with the heifer, but rather a general law that applies to all those who perform elements of the sacrificial "service" outside the Temple.[34] To complete this study, see also the discussion regarding the impurity that accompanies the water of sprinkling in our study of Parashat Chukat, in Sefer Iyunim Be-Farashat Ha-Shavua, third series, pp. 291-300. (Translated by David Strauss)
[1] Such a prologue, in which Moshe and Aharon are mentioned as the addressees of God's words, is found at the beginning of most of the sections dealing with purity and impurity in the book of Vayikra (chapters 11-15). In our study of Parashiyot Tazria-Metzora, section 12, we noted that the section dealing with the red heifer belongs to those sections, and we explained why it was uprooted from its place there. In our study of Parashat Chukat, first series, at the end of section 1 (p. 218), we explained why it was placed specifically in our parasha (in accordance with the principle that that there is no chronological order to the sections of the Torah). In the present study, we will not return to that discussion. [2] a. The phrase "the statute of the law [chukat ha-torah]" appears in one other place in the Torah, in Bemidbar 31:21: "And Elazar the priest said to the men of war that went to the battle: This is the statute of the law which the Lord has commanded Moshe." In the continuation (v. 23), mention is made of the need to purify the spoils of war in water of sprinkling. b. The term chuka is explained in the gemara in several places (Yoma 40a; ibid. 60a; Kiddushin 14a; and elsewhere) in relation to a process that is commanded by the Torah and that must be performed "in the prescribed order; if one service was done out of order before another one, it is as if it had not been done at all" (mishna and baraita, Yoma 60a). This explanation fits in well in our parasha, both with regard to the preparation of the red heifer described in vv. 1-10 and with regard to the purification process of one who contracted corpse impurity described in vv. 17-19. In Menachot 27a it is stated in the mishna that the three species mentioned in connection with the heifer – the cedar-wood, the hyssop and the scarlet – are indispensable and that the seven sprinklings of the blood of the heifer are indispensable, and the gemara explains that these laws follow from the term chuka that is used in connection with the red heifer. See also Menachot 29a. c. The term torah in our context – and similarly in v. 14: "This is the law [ha-torah]: When a man dies in a tent…" refers to a set of instructions governing a specific halakhic issue (and not to the entire Torah). This is true in many other places in the Torah as well. In our context, the reference is to the "law of corpse impurity and the purification from it." Therefore, "this is the statute of the law" means: This is the set of actions that must be performed [= chuka] in the framework of the instructions [= ha-tora] regarding the laws of corpse impurity and purification from it. This is the way that the Rashbam explains v. 2. d. The words of the midrash that are cited by Rashi change the meaning of both of these words: chuka is understood to mean a "decree," the reason for which cannot be understood, and torah is understood as referring to Moshe's Torah in its entirety. [3] From the words of Chazal in several places (see, for example, Mishna Para 3:5), it would appear that a blemish-free red heifer that meets all of the halakhic conditions was exceedingly rare, and that over the course of history, from the time of Moshe until the destruction of the Second Temple, less than ten such animals were found. [4] Mei nida means "water of sprinkling" (R. Saadya Gaon, Rashi). Rashi explains that it is similar in meaning to: "and they cast [va-yadu] a stone upon me" (Eikha 3:53). Ibn Ezra explains that mei nida is water for one who is menudeh (distanced, unclean); the water that purifies him (so it would appear from his brief comment). The first explanation is more persuasive. [5] The need for the application of the water of sprinkling on two occasions, on the third day and on the seventh day, is stated unequivocally in v. 19, and therefore this is the way that we must also understand both parts of v. 12. [6] The general instructions that appear in the central axis do not accord with the nature of the first half, which provides very detailed instructions regarding the preparation of the heifer's ashes. The reason for this is that the central axis serves as a transitional stage between the first half and the second half, as will be explained below. [7] For the meaning of the term "tora" here and in verse 2, see note 2c. [8] This phenomenon is found in many halakhic sections, especially in the book of Vayikra. We noted this in our study of Parashat Tetzaveh, first series, note 22. The appendix found in our parasha should be added to the list of examples presented there. [9] Nevertheless, there is a slight difference between the two verses. Verse 13 states: "Whoever touches the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifies not himself…," whereas verse 20 states: "But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself…" This difference stems from the fact that the second half specifies other ways of contracting corpse impurity, in addition to touching. [10] Many laws are added in the first part: Corpse impurity is contracted not only through touch, but also by being in the same tent as the corpse; the impurity is imparted not only by the entire corpse, but even by a bone and even by a grave; the impurity is contracted not only by humans, but also by vessels. The following laws are added in the third section: The sprinkling must be done with a hyssop; the one who sprinkles must be clean; the purification requires washing one's clothes and bathing one's body in water. [11] In Yoma 67b it is stated: "'And My statutes you shall keep' (Vayikra 18) – such commandments to which Satan objects, they are [those relating to] the putting on of sha'atnez, the chalitza [performed] by a sister-in-law, the purification of the leper, and the goat that is sent off to Azazel." However, in some manuscripts, as well as in the commentary of Rabbeinu Chananel, ad loc., the list includes additional examples, including the calf whose neck is broken and the mixture of meat and milk. The Rambam (end of Hilkhot Me'ila) cites this list and includes the red heifer, as does the Ramban in his commentary to Vayikra 16:8. [12] In his commentary to Vayikra 16:8, s.v. ve-goral echad la-azazel, toward the end. [13] This stands in contrast to the words of the Ramban cited earlier, but accords with what the Rambam writes in Hilkhot Para Aduma 4:3 – that "the expression 'sweet savor' was not stated with regard to it." [14] Such as the possibility of redeeming a red heifer if a more attractive one is found, even if no blemish was found in the first one (Rambam, Hilkhot Para Aduma 1:10). [15] In Mishna Para 2:3, it is stated: "All blemishes that cause consecrated animals to be invalid cause also the [red] heifer to be invalid." [16] The Rambam writes (Hilkhot Para Aduma 4:17): "All of the activities performed with the red heifer from the beginning to the end must be performed only during the day [= like sacrifices brought in the Temple] and by male priests." The source for this ruling is Mishna Para 4:4. [17] Rambam, Hilkhot Para Aduma 10:6, based on Mishna Para 12:10. [18] Chazal commonly refer to the red heifer as the "chatat heifer," based on the verse: "it is a chatat." Its ashes are also referred to as "chatat ashes," and the water of sprinkling is called "chatat water." [19] Regarding the necessity of preparing the ashes of the red heifer outside the Temple, see note 31. [20] Rashi's source seems to be the Talmudic passage in Yoma 67b, cited above in note 11, but no mention is made there of the red heifer, not in the printed version of the Gemara, nor in the commentary of Rabbeinu Chananel, who cites a different reading of the Gemara, and not in the many other versions of the text cited in Dikdukei Sefarim. However, the matter is strange: Not only Rashi, but also the Rambam at the end of Hilkhot Me'ila and the Ramban in his commentary to Vayikra 16:8 include the red heifer in the list of examples of statutes according to the Gemara! The absence of this example from the Gemara in Yoma raises also a substantive question. [21] The purification of the leper is in fact one of the examples brought in the Gemara in Yoma 67b of statutes that Satan and the nations of the world use to taunt Israel. [22] The author of the Chinukh took this last reason from the words of the Ramban cited in the previous section. [23] The editor of the Midrash, R. Shlomo Buber, asks: "I don't understand why he brought this… in the name of R. Yitzchak, for it is an explicit Mishna (Para 4:4)." Indeed, parallel midrashim cite the mishna. But the last clause, "while it itself purifies the unclean," is not found in the mishna, and perhaps this is what R. Yitzchak adds. [24] Tanchuma (Buber), Chukat 23 (and parallels), brings four mitzvot that have an internal logical contradiction, and therefore "the evil inclination objects to them, and regarding each of them the word 'statute' is used." Upon closer examination, however, only one mitzva – the red heifer – raises real difficulty, whereas the other three – the prohibition of one's brother's wife as opposed to levirate marriage, the prohibition of sha'atnez as opposed to the mitzva of tzitzit, and the goat that is sent to Azazel, which renders its sender unclean, but at the same time atones for the sins of Israel – are not as difficult as the red heifer. [25] Brought also by Rashi in Beitza 33a. [26] According to the Halakha, the one who burns the red heifer must also be a priest; it is not at all clear why this is not stated in the verse. [27] We have explained the law stated in the mishna: "All who are engaged in the preparation of the [red] heifer, from the beginning until the end, render their garments unclean," in accordance with what appears to us to be the plain meaning of the verses and in the wake of the words of the Rambam. The Sifrei (124), however, learns the source of this law in a different manner: "'Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water' (v. 7) – the verse comes to teach about the one who casts the hyssop, that he renders his clothes unclean… 'And he that burns it shall wash his clothes' (v. 8) – the verse comes to teach about the one that burns the heifer, that he renders his clothes unclean. Surely, had it not stated [the law of the burner], I could derive it [by way of a kal va-chomer argument]: If the one who casts the hyssop [whose service is short and light] renders his clothes unclean, the one who burns the heifer [whose service is extended and of critical importance] should certainly render his clothes unclean. If I can derive this [by way of a kal va-chomer argument], what is taught by the verse: 'And he that burns it shall wash his clothes'? The verse comes and teaches about those occupied in the heifer from the beginning until the end that they must wash their clothes, bathe their bodies, and wait for nightfall." [28] The source for these words of the Rambam is the plain meaning of the Biblical text, as the Kesef Mishneh argues in the name of Ri Corcus: "Since it is written: 'And he that gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes,' the implication is that there is no impurity for one who occupies himself with it afterwards." The words of Rashi (Bekhorot 23a, s.v. ve-i amrat tum'a) suggest that he disagrees with the Rambam and maintains that the ashes impart impurity. But the words of the Rambam appear to be correct, for the division of the ashes and setting them aside for safekeeping are not included among the services explicitly mentioned in the Torah in connection with the preparation of the red heifer, which impart impurity, as argued by Ri Corcus, and touching the ashes is also not included in what is stated at the end of the section in verse 21: "and he that sprinkles the water of sprinkling… and he that touches the water of sprinkling," for the ashes are not the water of sprinkling. [29] V. 21 mentions for the first time impurity contracted through touch. Those who occupy themselves in the preparation of the heifer become unclean because of their occupation, even without touching (and the heifer does not render unclean by way of touch one who is not occupied in its preparation; see below). Proof to this may be brought from the Rambam's definition: "Who is considered as 'one who burns' it? Anyone who helps in burning it, for example, one who turns over the meat, one who places wood upon it, one who fans the fire, one who stirs the coals so that the fire will burn, and the like.' None of these people touch the heifer. [30] This law that is shared by the three "who occupy themselves" with consecrated animals appears in Mishna Para 8:3: "He who burns the red heifer or the bullocks [of the sin-offerings that are burnt] and he that sends the goat off to Azazel, render garments unclean. The red heifer, however, and the bullocks and the goat that is sent off do not themselves convey uncleanness to garments. Well may it say [= the garment to the person]: Those that cause you to be unclean do not cause me to be unclean, but you have caused me to be unclean." The joining of these three laws – the red heifer, the bullocks and the goat – in one Mishna stems from the saying that is shared by the three which is a recurring motif in that chapter of the Mishna. But the joining of the three in one chapter of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah in Hilkhot Para Aduma testifies to the fact the Rambam saw these three laws as expressions of the same fundamental law. [31] See our remarks in note 29, and the words of the Rambam cited there. [32] What necessitates that each of these services be performed specifically outside of the Temple is as follows: • The goat that is sent off to Azazel – by its very nature this service must be performed outside the Temple. • The burning of the sin-offerings that must be burnt – this too cannot be performed in the Temple, because only a burnt-offering is burnt in its entirety on the altar, and not a sin-offering. Since burning is a law applying to these sin-offerings, but it is not part of their service, it must be done outside the Temple. • The burning of the red heifer must be done outside the Temple, for it is not burning for "sweet savor," but rather burning for the sake of using the ashes, and this cannot be done on the altar. Apart from this, the heifer is not consecrated for the altar but rather for the upkeep of the altar, and therefore even its slaughter cannot be performed in the Temple courtyard. Hence, all of the services performed in its regard must be done outside the Temple. [33] "If he sprinkled the blood, but did not direct it to the Sanctuary, it is invalid. For it is stated: 'Toward the front of the Tent of Meeting" – this implies that he should direct it toward the Sanctuary and see it. Similarly, if he slaughtered it or burnt it not opposite the Sanctuary, it is invalid, as it is stated: 'He shall slaughter it before him'" (Rambam, Hilkhot Para Aduma 4:5). [34] Thus, it is not because the red heifer comes to purify the unclean that it renders unclean those who occupy themselves with it, but rather these are two separate laws and there is no connection between them. It should be noted that both the Rambam and the Ramban, even though they discuss the fact that the red heifer is included among the statutes with which the nations of the world taunt Israel, nowhere mention the seeming logical contradiction that the heifer renders the clean impure while it purifies the unclean. They do not mention this because they do not see in this a contradiction, and it is upon their words that we have based our explanation of the matter. The author of the Chinukh, who saw this logical "contradiction" as the great difficulty in the section dealing with the red heifer (his words were brought above in section 3), sensed that the contradiction could be reconciled in the manner presented here, but immediately retreated from it. His argument is unclear: "But the real marvel, according to what I have heard, is that it purifies the unclean, but renders unclean those who participate in its burning. Even though this is the law regarding all the bullock and goat sin-offerings that are burnt, that he who burns them renders his clothes unclean when he burns them until they turn into ashes, nevertheless their ashes [= of these sin-offerings] do not purify."
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!