The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Parashat Chukat begins with the laws of the para aduma - the red heifer, the ashes of which were used to purify those who had come in contact with a dead body. The third verse in the parasha (19:3) indicates that it was Elazar, the son of Aharon, who was charged with the various responsibilities concerning the preparation of the cow's ashes. The Sifrei notes that only the preparation of the ashes of this initial cow fell upon the shoulders of Elazar, who then served as the "segan kohen gadol" - the "assistant" kohen gadol. (Obviously, his father, Aharon, served as the kohen gadol.) The Sifrei cites a difference of opinion as to who may prepare the ashes subsequently. According to Rabbi Meir, representing the minority view, only the kohen gadol could prepare the ashes of other red heifers. The second, majority position permits any kohen to work in this capacity. This dispute is recorded as well in Masekhet Para (4:1) and in the Gemara in Masekhet Yoma (42b).

Either way, the question arises as to why the initial para aduma ritual was reserved specifically for Elazar. We cite here two explanations offered by the Rishonim.

Rashi, after his standard commentary to this section, brings a homiletic approach to these verses from the writings of Rav Moshe ha-Darshan. In his analysis, Rav Moshe ha-Darshan shows how every detail mentioned in the text concerning the para aduma corresponds to a feature of the golden calf - the worship of which is to be atoned through the mitzva of para aduma. Accordingly, Aharon, the natural candidate for the red heifer ritual, given his title as kohen gadol, was disqualified on account of his active involvement in the incident of the golden calf.

The Chizkuni cites a different explanation from an anonymous source, who is in fact Rabbenu Yosef Bekhor Shor. As we know, the ashes of the red heifer paradoxically purified the ritually impure while at the same time rendered ritually impure anyone involved in the process of its preparation or sprinkling. The Bekhor Shor suggests, quite simply, that the Almighty felt it inappropriate for the kohen gadol to become ritually impure; he therefore transferred the responsibility from Aharon to Elazar.

Rav Chaim Yosef Issar Gad, who published an annotated edition of the Bekhor Shor, makes a fairly obvious point regarding this approach. If indeed the concern here was for the ritual purity of the kohen gadol, then for all times the kohen gadol should be denied permission to prepare the ashes of the para aduma. Yet, as we saw, all views agree that the specific requirement of a "segan" applied only when the very first red heifer was prepared. Subsequently, however, the rite was performed either strictly by the kohen gadol himself, or by any kohen, presumably including the kohen gadol. It seems, then, that Rabbenu Yosef Bekhor Shor's approach directly opposes the view of Chazal.

As anyone familiar with the work of Rabbenu Yosef Bekhor Shor knows, this should not come as much of a surprise. The Bekhor Shor (a student of Rabbenu Tam) frequently assumes the license to interpret Chumash in direct contradistinction to the explanations of Chazal in the Midrashim and halakhic contexts.

Nevertheless, Rav Gad makes an attempt at reconciling the Bekhor Shor's approach with Chazal. He notes that in Masekhet Yoma 42b, the Gemara cites what appears to be the same dispute quoted earlier from the Sifrei. One view cited by the Gemara maintains that for subsequent red heifers a kohen gadol is required, while the second holds that a regular kohen qualifies. Now the Gemara never indicates that the second position permits a kohen gadol to prepare the para aduma. Although all the commentaries take this as a given (how could the high priest be excluded from a ritual available to all other kohanim??), the Bekhor Shor may have understood this second view to mean that specifically a standard kohen, and not a kohen gadol, may perform this ritual. Rav Gad adds that this would explain a glaring anomaly in the Gemara, that it brings these two views anonymously, without citing the explicit record of this dispute in the Sifrei or the mishna in Masekhet Para. (The Ritva there in Yoma already noted the peculiarity in the Gemara's presentation of this dispute.) According to the interpretation suggested, the reason becomes clear: this is not the same dispute as that which appears in the Sifrei and the mishna, for here in Yoma one view in fact disqualifies the kohen gadol from preparing the ashes of the para aduma.

Tomorrow we will return to our original question and explore other reasons why only Elazar could prepare the initial para aduma.

*****

Yesterday we discussed the distinction drawn in the Sifrei and other sources between the initial para aduma (red heifer) prepared in the wilderness, and those prepared thereafter. As indicated in the third verse of Parashat Chukat, the task of preparing the first para aduma was assigned specifically to Aharon's son Elazar, who was the "segan," or assistant, to the kohen gadol (Aharon). In future generations, however, all kohanim may fill this role according to the majority view, while Rabbi Meir holds that only a kohen gadol may do so.

Today we will look at several possible reasons, besides the two mentioned yesterday, as to why specifically Elazar was chosen to prepare the initial red heifer.

The Ramban points to the location of this ritual as the relevant factor in this regard. Normally, the Torah strictly forbids performing any sacrificial ritual outside the sacred grounds of the Mishkan (or Temple). The para aduma, however, actually had to be taken outside the camp (or the Temple Mount) and be burnt there. The Ramban suggests that it did not suit Aharon, "the sacred one of God and His pious one, who earns atonement [on behalf of the nation] in His Temple" to perform such a ritual. The Ramban then suggests a different explanation, that the initial para aduma ritual was meant to train Elazar in at least one ritual associated with the high priesthood even before his father's death and his assumption of his title. Interestingly, in both these approaches the Ramban assumes the minority view, of Rabbi Meir, that essentially it is specifically the kohen gadol who is given this task of preparing the ashes of the red heifer.

The Maharal of Prague, in his Gur Aryeh, associates this issue with a different comment of Rashi, on the previous verse, that the initial para aduma would always be identified as the red heifer prepared by Moshe. This was necessary, the Maharal explains, because only Moshe comprehended the deep reasoning behind this ritual. The para aduma therefore had to be, at least initially, directly associated with him. If Aharon, a man of great stature, were to have prepared the red heifer, then people would have immediately associated it with Aharon, rather than Moshe. Assigning the task to Elazar, a less prominent figure (though clearly no slouch in his own right), ensured that no one involved in the process would overshadow Moshe's role. The Maharal adds that according to the second view, that essentially any kohen could prepare the para aduma, the specific appointment of Elazar was intended simply as an aberration which would underscore the uniqueness of this red heifer, having been prepared under the auspices of Moshe Rabbenu.

The Abarbanel suggests a much different explanation, one which flows naturally from his approach as to why the Torah here introduces the para aduma in the first place. In effect, he argues on the Sifrei's assumption that the Torah speaks here of the very first para aduma whose ashes were prepared for sprinkling. As the commentators noted, immediately following this halakhic discussion of the red heifer, the narrative "jumps" ahead from the second year of Benei Yisrael's journey through the wilderness to the fortieth. The parent generation, thleft Egypt, has died, and the children nprepare to enter and conquer the Promised Land. According to the Abarbanel, God presents here the laws of the para aduma as part of the nation's preparation for warfare, which naturally results in widespread ritual impurity. The initial supply of ashes, prepared by Moshe some thirty-nine years earlier, would not suffice for the anticipated influx of instances of tum'a (impurity). Therefore, God here calls upon Benei Yisrael to prepare additional ashes. Foreseeing Aharon's death in the wilderness and his son's ascension to the post of the high priesthood, God specifically assigns Elazar to this task, for he will be the kohen gadol when the battles necessitating the additional ashes will occur.

*****

Parashat Chukat contains the famous and puzzling episode of Mei Meriva, where God commands Moshe to produce water for Benei Yisrael by speaking to the rock. As we know, Moshe hits the rock, instead, and is therefore severely punished, together with Aharon, by being denied the right to enter the Promised Land. This sin and punishment have been the subject of considerable debate among the commentators, who struggle to identify the precise nature of the sin and how it warranted such a severe response from God.

The Netziv, in his He'amek Davar, offers a creative explanation of this incident, which we discussed in our S.A.L.T. series for this parasha last year. The Netziv reinterprets God's command to Moshe and Aharon, "and you shall speak to the rock in their sight… " (20:8). In truth, the Netziv claims, Moshe and Aharon were to speak to Benei Yisrael, not the rock. As opposed to the miraculous means by which God provided food and water in the wilderness, now, as Benei Yisrael stand on the brink of entry into the land, they must learn to turn to God in prayer and repentance when they confront a shortage of water. The Netziv cites several sources in Chazal to the effect that during times of drought, the spiritual leaders are to assemble their communities and lecture to them in matters of halakha as well as with regard to repentance. Whereas in the wilderness God provides water miraculously, with a mobile wellspring and by cracking dry rocks in the arid desert, in Eretz Yisrael water is produced by Benei Yisrael's appealing to God through prayer, study and repentance.

Even if we accept the Netziv's approach, however, we cannot overlook the simple reading of the verse, "ve-dibartem el ha-sela," which clearly implies that God instructed Moshe and Aharon to speak to the rock. If, as the Netziv contended, Moshe and Aharon were to address Benei Yisrael, why does God formulate His command in a manner implying that they must speak to the rock and order it to produce water?

Perhaps this formulation, according to the Netziv's analysis, teaches us the true power of prayer and repentance. When we turn to God during times of need, we in effect directly exert power over the forces of nature. Our learning, prayers and performance of mitzvot directly impact upon the physical world. By sincerely turning to God through teshuva and prayer and asking Him to provide water, we in effect order rocks to produce water, or, more accurately, we tell the clouds in the heavens to bring us our desperately needed rain. This idea is developed at length by Rav Chaim of Volozhin in his famous work, Nefesh ha-Chayim. (Incidentally, the Netziv married the granddaughter of Rav Chayim of Volozhin.) Our Torah, prayer and good deeds have a profound effect on God's governing of the natural world.

As the Netziv explains, Moshe failed to perform his responsibilities in this regard and resorted to the old method, the miraculous extraction of water from a rock with his staff. As a result, Benei Yisrael did not learn this vital message that they would need to take with them into the land. When crisis surfaces, we cannot sit back and wait for the miracle to occur. The true "staff" is in our hands, not Moshe's; through our sincere prayer and repentance, we, too, can produce water from a rock.

*****

The opening section of Parashat Chukat, known for its discussion of the para aduma (heifer), in fact addresses the broader topic of "tum'at met" - the ritual impurity contracted upon contact with a human corpse. Of all the forms of ritual impurity, tum'at met is by far the most stringent. Consider the following unique features of this form of tum'a:

1. One who comes in contact with a human corpse himself becomes an "av ha-tum'a," meaning, he is capable of transmitting tum'a to other people or utensils. In all other instances of tum'a, only the origin of the tum'a itself (such as the carcass or the substance emitted from the body) has this power.
2. Whereas all other forms of tum'a are transmitted only through direct physical contact, tum'at met travels through airspace. For example, someone situated in the same building as a corpse contracts tum'a ("tum'at ohel").
3. Tum'at met features a halakha known as "cherev harei hu ke-chalal" (derived from the verse 19:16), namely, that a utensil that touches a corpse becomes like the corpse itself, in that one who touches that utensil becomes an "av ha-tum'a." (Although, the Ramban limits this provision to direct contact with the utensil; this utensil cannot transmit tum'a through airspace as does the corpse itself.)
4. Only tum'at met requires the sprinkling of the ashes of the para aduma for the individual to become ritually pure.

An additional element to consider, though not directly related to the issue of tum'a, is the prohibition against deriving benefit from a corpse, which Chazal derive from a verse later in Parashat Chukat ("va-tamat sham Miriam" - 20:1; see Avoda Zara 29b).

Rabbenu Yosef Bekhor Shor posits an insightful theory that explains all these unique halakhot. The Torah wishes to discourage people from spending too much time grieving over their deceased loved ones. Though mourning may very well constitute a Torah obligation (one day according to the Rambam; seven according to the Geonim; Tosefot maintain that all of mourning is mi-de-rabbanan), nevertheless the Torah frowns upon excessive preoccupation with death. It therefore saw to it that tum'at met is easy to contract and difficult to eliminate, effectively discouraging people from involving themselves with the source of this tum'a. This distance is further reinforced by the prohibition against deriving benefit from a corpse. (In fact, one may not derive benefit even from any clothing or accessories placed on the body.) When tragedy strikes, Heaven forbid, the Torah acknowledges the human need to express grief and sorrow, but at the same time urges one to overcome the trauma, gather strength and resolve, and make an effort to focus on life, rather than death.

We believe that there is profound meaning in every day of life; every situation, no matter how tragic or painful, charges each of us with responsibilities and obligations. We are therefore always obliged to discover those responsibilities, no matter what circumstances, and execute them to the best of our ability.

*****

Parashat Chukat begins with parashat para - the section dealing with the para aduma (red heifer). The Torah (19:2) lists several prerequisites for a cow's qualification for use as a para aduma: it must completely red, free of physical blemishes, and never subjected to work or a yoke. This final requirement, that the cow must never have been worked by a human being, is extended to include breeding; a heifer that has mated with a male cow is disqualified, as mentioned in Masekhet Para 2:4, because this, too, is a form of "working" an animal.

In light of this, the Rishonim note the obvious difficulty arising from the mishna just three mishnayot earlier in Masekhet Para (2:1). There Rabbi Eliezer and the other tanna'im argue as to whether a pregnant cow may be used as a para aduma. How does this discussion ever begin if a cow becomes disqualified the moment it has been bred?

The Rishonim (see the commentaries of the Rash and Rosh there in Masekhet Para; and Tosefot in Bava Metzia 30a) raise several possible answers. One simple possibilityis to assume that Rabbi Eliezer and his opponents work within the view of Rabbi Ye(cited in 2:4), that only a heifer that had been specifically bred through human involvement may not be used as a para aduma. A cow that mated naturally, however, is not disqualified. Rabbi Eliezer and the Chakhamim thus address this latter case and question the cow's viability if it had become pregnant. We should note, however, that Rabbi Yehuda represents the minority view that is not accepted as authoritative halakha.

Alternatively, some Rishonim contend that intercourse disqualifies a cow only when it occurred with the knowledge of its owner. The Rishonim arrive at this principle based on a parallel between this halakha and the concept of "makhshirei okhlin," that food becomes eligible to contract tum'a only after having come in contact with a liquid. In Bava Metzia 22a, the Gemara requires the owner's knowledge of the contact with water for it to qualify the given food for tum'a. Similarly, perhaps, the mating of a cow becomes halakhically significant with respect to the laws of para aduma only when the cow's owner was aware of the intercourse. However, as the Rash and Rosh note, the Tosefta in Masekhet Para implies that only according to the aforementioned, minority view of Rabbi Yehuda do we require the owner's knowledge for intercourse to disqualify the red heifer. The majority view, by contrast, disqualifies the cow even if the owner did not know that it had mated.

Tomorrow we will iy"H look at two other answers to this question.

*****

Yesterday we mentioned the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the other tannaim (as recorded in Masekhet Para 4:1) as to whether a pregnant cow may be used for the para aduma. Many Rishonim noted the obvious difficulty in even raising such an issue, given that a cow becomes disqualified immediately upon mating (as codified three mishnayot later, 4:4).

One answer, cited by the Rishonim in the name of Rav Yitzchak of Simfon, reinterprets the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the Chakhamim. Both agree that the mother cow may not be used as a para aduma. They argue only as to the viability of the fetus. Meaning, can a pregnant cow be purchased by the Temple treasury in order for its fetus to be used as a para aduma? (Apparently, we assume that a red heifer will likewise give birth to a red calf.) The Chakhamim disqualify the fetus in light of the passage in the Sifrei Zuta (on Bemidbar 19:2) requiring that the para aduma be purchased only once it has reached the minimum age (either two or three years; see the first mishna in Masekhet Para). Rabbi Eliezer argues with the Sifrei Zuta and allows the use of a cow even if it was purchased for use as a para aduma when it was still a calf.

According to this approach, Rabbi Eliezer and the Chakhamim could have just as well debated this issue directly, addressing the case of purchasing a calf for use as a para aduma when it reaches the minimum age. It is unclear why, according to Rav Yitzchak of Simfon, the tanna'im chose the specific instance of the pregnant cow to express their difference of opinion.

A different approach is taken by the Ra'avad, in his critique of the Rambam, in Hilkhot Para Aduma 1:7. Unlike Rav Yitzchak of Simfon, the Ra'avad accepts the straightforward reading of the mishna, by which the tanna'im debate the suitability of a pregnant heifer for use as a para aduma. The Ra'avad distinguishes between cases when the cow desires intercourse and when the bull forced itself upon the female. If a cow mated willingly, then such intercourse is considered "le-tzorkha" - an activity necessary for the cow itself. The mishna (Para 2:3) explicitly establishes that any type of work performed by the cow for its own benefit or well-being does not disqualify it for use as a para aduma. If, however, the cow was not interested in mating at that point, then we view the intercourse as tantamount to physical labor which indeed disqualifies the cow. Rabbi Eliezer and the Chakhamim spoke of the first case, when the cow does not become disqualified due to sexual intercourse.

The Ra'avad's explanation assumes that somehow we can practically tell the difference between desired and undesired mating. Rav Nissan Alpert zt"l, in his "Kovetz ha-Ra'avad on Bava Metzia (30a), speculates that perhaps a cow can be impregnated only at a time when it desires intercourse, though clearly scientific study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

*****

The story told in Parashat Balak, of Bilam's failed attempt to place a curse upon Benei Yisrael, is peculiar in many respects. One particularly striking feature is the conversation between Bilam and his donkey. The Torah relates how a heavenly angel, seen only by the donkey and not by its rider, blocked Bilam's path as he made his way to Moav to curse Benei Yisrael. After Bilam's repeated beating of his donkey, "The Lord opened the donkey's mouth" (22:28), and it chided Bilam for his violent conduct.

Commenting on this verse, the Seforno writes, "The Lord opened the mouth of the donkey - He gave him the ability to speak, similar to that which is written, 'Lord, open my lips' (Tehillim 51:17)." The Seforno makes the somewhat obvious point that we must interpret "opened the mouth of the donkey" figuratively. God did not actually open the mouth, but rather miraculously granted Bilam's donkey the ability to speak. Remarkably, however, the Seforno associates this miracle with the Psalmist's petition to God with which we open our daily shemoneh esrei prayer: "Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will tell Your praise."

Rav Yaakov Ruderman zt"l, the eminent Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Ner Yisrael in Baltimore, would often note (as related by Rav Yissachar Frand) the powerful message that emerges from this simple comment by the Seforno. We can make no distinction between man's ability to verbally communicate and the supernatural verbal skills granted to Bilam's donkey. Both are equally miraculous, both depend solely on the Almighty. Though we often take natural forces for granted, in truth even the most basic and self-understood natural phenomena, including man's most basic power, of speech, can be attributed only to God's kindness. Whenever we approach Him in prayer, we ask Him to open our mouths - just as He opened the mouth of Bilam's donkey. What an appropriately humbling thought as we begin our prayer service!

The Seforno continues by explaining the significance of the donkey's speech within the broader context of the plot at hand. This entire episode was intended to bring Bilam to repentance. God wished to show him that He has full control over speech, to the extent that He can even grant this power to an otherwise mute creature. Similarly, then, He can take away this gift from those who normally possess it. This foreshadows the control God later exerts over Bilam, permitting him to speak only words of praise and blessing for Benei Yisrael, rather than performing the intended task of cursing them.

In effect, then, the incident of Bilam's donkey embodies one of the central themes of Parashat Balak - God's ultimate control over everything, including our most basic strengths, skills and capabilities.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il