This week’s Parsha is filled with a variety of topics – from the death of Miriam on the 10th of Nissan to the death of Aharon on the 1st of Av. The Parsha opens with the subject of the Parah Aduma, the Red Heifer, and introduces the Mitzvah as follows:
זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' לֵאמֹר – This is the statute of the Torah that G-d has commanded, saying.
For those paying attention, the only חֹק in the Torah where the phrase חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה – statute of the Torah, appears, is this one. The commentators focus on why it says zot chukat haTorah and not zot chukat haParah, given that other Mitzvot, such as sha’atnez, are also “statutes of the Torah” yet the Torah does not classify them as such like it does here. The question they ask is: Why? What is unique and at stake here?
Another question requiring clarification is: The topic of the Parah Aduma was already relayed to Bnei Yisrael back in Marah, a few days after crossing Yam Suf. According to Rashi there, the Pasuk of שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ – There He gave him a statute and a judgment, and there He tested him, refers to the sections of the Torah regarding the following items: שַׁבָּת וּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה וְדִינִין – Shabbat, the Parah Aduma, and the administration of justice.
These specific commandments were given in Marah because Hakadosh Baruch Hu wanted to provide an introduction to Matan Torah, and as is known, we have three types of commandments, just as the wise son says on Seder night: מָה הָעֵדוֹת וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' אֱ-לֹהֵינוּ אֶתְכֶם. What are the testimonies, statutes, and judgments that Hashem our G-d has commanded you?
Some Mitzvot are called עֵדוֹת – testimonies, such as Shabbat, where we testify that in six days Hakadosh Baruch Hu made the heavens and the earth. Sukkot is also such a Mitzvah, as we testify that He made Bnei Yisrael dwell in booths when He brought them out of Egypt. Similarly with Pesach, where we testify that Hakadosh Baruch Hu passed over the houses of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians.
Additionally, there are Mitzvot that belong to a system called דִינִים – judgments; commandments that are understandable to human intellect, such as “You shall not murder,” and “You shall not steal,” and the like. Additionally, human intellect understands that one must honor parents, and that there must be some system of laws, such building codes and sanitation laws, otherwise there would be complete chaos.
Finally, there are Mitzvot called חֻקִּים – statutes. They are understood as decrees that have not clear and understandable reasoning behind them. Chazal in the Midrashim speak about these Mitzvot and often choose the particular Mitzvah of Parah Aduma – but why? Additionally, most of the Mitzvot given to us in Marah could be fulfilled the very next morning, such as Shabbat, honoring parents, and laws for handling monetary disputes. But the commandment of the Parah Aduma was not relevant at that time! First, they needed an actual red heifer, and second, they needed to sprinkle it at the entrance of the Ohel Moed, but there was no Mishkan or Ohel Moed in place yet. So why was it necessary to command them about the Parah Aduma which they couldn’t fulfill at that time anyway?
One thing we find is that this Mitzvah is particularly related to the concept of Torah, and therefore it is called chukat haTorah rather than chukat haParah. There are characteristics here that form the foundation for accepting the Torah, and therefore Hakadosh Baruch Hu chose to give this in Marah to prepare us for receiving the Torah. The question for us to address is: What is the connection between Parah Aduma and Matan Torah?
The Connection Between Parah Aduma and Torah
The Gemara (Berachot 63b) teaches:
דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ : מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִתְקַיְּמִין אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁמֵּמִית עַצְמוֹ עָלֶיהָ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל״.
As Reish Lakish said: From where is it derived that matters of Torah are only retained by one who kills himself over it? As it is stated: “This is the Torah: When one dies in a tent”.
The Chafetz Chaim brings a parable to explain this. It is like a man who owns a business and decided to learn for an hour after davening. His wife is waiting for him to arrive at the store because that many customers have showed up, but upon seeing that her husband isn’t coming, she goes to call him from the Beit Midrash: “Where are you? There are so many customers here!” The husband responds, “I’m in the middle of learning now!” “But there are so many customers here in the store!” “What would you do if they told you that I just died but that I’d come back to life in an hour?” “I’d be happy!” “Great. I’ll be back at ten o’clock!”
This is what Chazal are telling us: The words of Torah are only sustained by one who kills himself over them. True Torah study demands the total devotion of one who is willing to dedicate his life in the tent of Torah.
Insights from Parshat Nasso and the Tribe of Yissachar
Another very interesting point comes from Parshat Nasso, where we find the offerings of the Nesi’im, one on each day. If we look closely, there are two differences between the second day and the third day. On the second day, the Nasi’s name appears first: בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי הִקְרִיב נְתַנְאֵל בֶּן צוּעָר נְשִׂיא יִשָּׂשכָר; whereas on the third day, it is reversed, and the tribe appears first: בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי נָשִׂיא לִבְנֵי זְבוּלֻן אֱלִיאָב בֶּן חֵלֹן. Another difference is that on the second day, the word הִקְרִיב – offered, is mentioned twice: הִקְרִיב אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי הִקְרִיב..., whereas on all the other days, הִקְרִיב is not mentioned and only קָרְבָּנוֹ followed by details of his offering.
Why does it say הִקְרִיב only for the tribe of Yissachar, and not for any other tribe? Rashi says, it is because Reuven came and protested, saying, “Is it not enough that my brother Yehuda has preceded me? Let me at least offer up after him.” However, Moshe Rabbeinu replied, “I was told by the Almighty that they should offer according to the order in which they travel, according to their banners.” Therefore, it says regarding Yissachar: הִקְרִיב אֶת־קׇרְבָּנוֹ, missing a yud. This implies הַקְרֵב, in the imperative, as he was commanded by the Hakadosh Baruch Hu to offer. And why does it repeat the word twice – הִקְרִיב and הִקְרִיב? It is because the tribe of Yissachar merited to bring their offering second for two reasons: Firstly, because they were knowledgeable in Torah, as it says in Divrei HaYamim (I, 12:33): וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לָעִתִּים. Secondly, because they gave advice to the Nesi’im to bring these offerings.
The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah, 13:15) provides an additional answer that Rashi does not mention as to why הִקְרִיב appears twice and why it’s missing a yud the second time around: It corresponds to the Parah Aduma that they prepared on that day. Therefore, הִקְרִיב was added, missing a yud, and the word was established with four letters, corresponding to the four requirements of the Parah Aduma: it must be red, unblemished, without defect, and never having borne a yoke.
Thus, we see that there is a connection between the Parah Aduma and the Torah. Another question that requires clarification is why Hakadosh Baruch Hu chose to give this Mitzvah specifically in Marah and not elsewhere? He Hakadosh Baruch Hu wanted us to understand what the Navi Yeshayahu relays: כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם – For My thoughts are not your thoughts. Our intellect says that if we want to drink something sweet, we need to use some kind of sweetener. But this is not the case with Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
Bnei Yisrael arrives at Marah and find no drinkable water, so they cry out to Moshe. וַיּוֹרֵהוּ ה' עֵץ וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶל הַמַּיִם וַיִּמְתְּקוּ הַמָּיִם – Hakadosh Baruch Hu commands him to throw a tree into the water, and upon throwing it into the water, the water became sweet. What was this “sweetening” tree that Moshe threw into the bitter water? The Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, 23:3) provides several opinions – a willow, a bitter oleander, an olive tree, a cypress, and the roots of a fig or pomegranate tree – all of which are bitter! What is the logic of putting something bitter into water to make it sweet?!
The above Pasuk ends with שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ – There He gave him a statute. It was there in Marah that the system of Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s statutes began, and the Parah Aduma was provided as the example! Why the Parah Aduma? Because the people understood that their intellect is not like the “intellect” of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. In the way of the world, if you take an oleander and put it in tea, within a few minutes you could, chas v’shalom, be gone. It’s poisonous! But with Hakadosh Baruch Hu, they take that same oleander and put it into the water, and the water becomes sweet! How can this be? It’s very simple. Your intellect is not the intellect of Hakadosh Baruch Hu! “With you, it kills; with Me, it gives life!”
Therefore, Hakadosh Baruch Hu took us specifically through Marah to give us the חֻקִּים there. If He had wanted to give us the חֻקִּים and מִשְׁפָּטִים there, He could have done so in Elim as well. But Hakadosh Baruch Hu wanted us to accept the Torah as a חֹק, a statute, and not question His ways – even if we don’t understand, we say, “Yes!”
Midrashim and the Mystery of Parah Aduma
If this is the case, let’s examine a few Midrashim and try to explain them. Chazal say that the only one who understood the reason for the Parah Aduma was Moshe Rabbeinu himself. Shlomo HaMelech tried to understand its reason and said: אֶחְכָּמָה וְהִיא רְחוֹקָה מִמֶּנִּי – I sought wisdom, but it was far from me. But why did only Shlomo HaMelech try to understand its reason? Why didn’t David HaMelech try?
The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah, 19:8) says: A certain idolater asked Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, “These actions you perform with the Parah Aduma seem like sorcery. You bring a cow, burn it, grind it, take its ashes, and when one of you is defiled by a corpse, you sprinkle two or three drops on him, and you say to him, ‘You are purified.’ What kind of practice is this?!” Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai asked in reply, “Has a spirit of madness ever entered you in your life?” He said, “No.” “Have you seen a person into whom a spirit of madness has entered?” He said, “Yes.” “And what do you do for him?” He said, “We bring roots, burn them under him, sprinkle water on it, and it flees.” Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai then said to him, “Let your ears hear what your mouth says! So too with this spirit, the spirit of impurity, they sprinkle the water of purification on it, and it flees.” After he left, his students said to him, “Our teacher, you pushed him off with a straw, but what do you say to us about the Parah Aduma?” He replied to his students, “By your lives, the dead do not defile, and the water does not purify, but Hakadosh Baruch Hu said: ‘I have decreed a statute, I have enacted a decree, and you are not permitted to transgress My decree, as it says: זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה.’”
Rabbotai, why is it necessary to use heavy language and say: חֻקָּה חָקַקְתִּי גְּזֵרָה גָּזַרְתִּי אִי אַתָּה רַשַׁאי לַעֲבֹר עַל גְּזֵרָתִי – I instituted a statute, issued a decree; you are not permitted to violate My decree? Why not just say, “I instituted a statute”? Why add the rest? Additionally, Chazal say (Bamidbar Rabbah, 19:6): אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה לְךָ אֲנִי מְגַלֶּה טַעַם פָּרָה, אֲבָל לְאַחֵר, חֻקָּה. Hakadosh Baruch Hu said to Moshe: To you I am revealing the rationale of the heifer, but for another, it is a statute.
If Moshe was the only one who knew the reason for this Mitzvah, how is it that in our Parsha, Rashi, citing Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan, seemingly explains its reason? “Let the heifer come and atone for the Golden Calf; for the sake of Yisrael, who were unblemished but became blemished through it, let this come and return them to their unblemished state.” Rashi even explains each of the Parah Aduma’s four requirements, linking each to an aspect of Cheit Ha’egel. Is Rashi’s explanation the reason behind the Mitzvah of Parah Aduma?! Certainly not! Following the sin of the Golden Calf, this was the reason; but the Mitzvah of Parah Aduma was given before Cheit Ha’egel, back in Marah! Therefore, Chazal add in this Midrash: רָמַז שֶׁכָּל הַפָּרוֹת בְּטֵלוֹת וְשֶׁלְּךָ קַיֶּמֶת. Hakadosh Baruch Hu intimated that all the heifers will cease, but Moshe’s will endure. Why is that?
The Maharzu says, this is the meaning of אֵלֶיךָ – to you, meaning that all red heifers were sanctified from the original Parah Aduma that Moshe Rabbeinu made, and from it, it was stored to sanctify for the future. In total, nine Parah Aduma’s were made until today, as the Mishnah says (Parah, 3:5): The first by Moshe, the second by Ezra, and five from Ezra onward, according to Rabbi Meir. And so writes the Rambam (Hilchot Parah Aduma, 3:4):
Nine red heifers were made from the time this Mitzvah was given until the destruction of the Second Beit Hamikdash. The first was made by Moshe, the second by Ezra, and seven from Ezra until the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. And the tenth will be made by the Melech HaMashiach, may he be revealed speedily, amen.
The Siftei Chachamim explains: For all heifers, they needed to mix some of Moshe’s Parah Aduma ashes, and with this, they sanctified it; otherwise, it was invalid. Therefore, they are all called Moshe’s. Thus, only to Moshe Rabbeinu was the reason for the Parah Aduma revealed.
Furthermore, pertaining to the need for the Parah Aduma, Chazal say that in the future, there will be no death in the world. Chazal say (Kohelet Rabbah, 1:4): מָחַצְתִּי וַאֲנִי אֶרְפָּא – I have wounded, and I will heal; It does not say “I smote”, but rather “I crushed”, meaning “I have crushed the barrier (mechitza) that I established between the heavenly and the earthly, that the heavenly live and the earthly die.” This holds true only in this world, but in the World to Come there is no death at all, as it is said בִּלַּע הַמָּוֶת לָנֶצַח – He will swallow up death forever.
Consequently, if we were to live forever, there would be no need for the ashes of the Parah Aduma. After Cheit Ha’egel, the Parah Aduma took on an entirely different meaning. The events of Marah occurred on the 25th or 26th of Nissan, while the Golden Calf was made on the 17th of Tammuz – only then did the matter of the Parah Aduma ashes become relevant again, as death returned to the world.
Elazar HaKohen and the Parah Aduma
I would like to address another question. Here, in Parshat Parah Aduma, Hakadosh Baruch Hu commands Moshe Rabbeinu that the first Parah Aduma should be performed by Elazar HaKohen, as it is written וּנְתַתֶּם אֹתָהּ אֶל אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן. Rashi says: its commandment is with the deputy. And what is done with the second Parah Aduma? Is it also with the deputy, or with an ordinary Kohen?
The Ramban writes, the first was handled by Elazar HaKohen, the deputy, but this does not mean the obligation of the commandment is more with the deputy than with the Kohen Gadol or an ordinary Kohen. It was only a temporary instruction for the first Parah Aduma. The Sifrei (Chukat 8) states that the Pasuk comes to teach that the Parah Aduma should be performed by the deputy, for Aharon was alive, and yet Elazar burns it. This one was done by Elazar, and all others by the Kohen Gadol, according to Rabbi Meir, while others hold all others could be done either by the Kohen Gadol or an ordinary Kohen. The idea, says the Sifrei, is that Mitzvah, due to the depth of its mystery, is fitting to be given to the greatest of the Kehuna, but it was not given to Aharon, perhaps because of his greatness, as Hakadosh Baruch Hu did not want to give him an Avodah outside the Mikdash; or it was to honor Elazar and initiate him during his father’s lifetime with one of the commandments of the Kohen Gadol; or it was as a punishment for his role in Cheit Ha’egel.
Chazal ask this question: Why was the first Parah Aduma not performed by Aharon HaKohen? Let us address another observation: When the Torah speaks of the Parah Aduma, it calls it מֵי נִדָּה חַטָּאת הִיא – Waters of purification, it is a sin offering. But we call it אֵפֶר הַפָּרָה – the ashes of the heifer. I saw the following question in sefer Divrei HaShira: Why is it called “ashes” (efer)? Seemingly, it should be called “waters” of the heifer (mei parah), just like the “waters of the sotah” (mei sotah). Why is it not named after the water here but rather after the ashes?
Fulfilling Mitzvot Without Reason
Hakadosh Baruch Hu does not want us to fulfill the Mitzvot because we understand them, and we know the reason, we’ll do it with more will. Hakadosh Baruch Hu does not desire this. Rather, He wants us to fulfill the commandments like servants, as the Navi Malachi says: זִכְרוּ תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדִי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אוֹתוֹ בְחֹרֵב עַל־כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים.
Moshe Rabbeinu fulfilled the commandments like a servant. A servant, if the master tells him to prepare tea, does not ask, “Why tea?” and the master does not explain why specifically tea. This is how we must perform the Mitzvot, like a servant, even with rational commandments that have a reason, such as Shabbat, Sukkot, etc.
The Gemara says (Bechorot 5b): Why did the donkey merit to be holy from the womb? Why are firstborn donkeys redeemed, but not firstborn horses or camels? Rabbi Eliezer in the great Beit Midrash answered, it is an edict of the Torah, and furthermore, they assisted Bnei Yisrael at the time of their exodus from Egypt, for there was not a single member of the nation who did not have ninety Nubian donkeys loaded with the silver and gold of Egypt. Thus, we learn a wonderful yesod from this: The moment you give a person a reason, he will come and claim it is not relevant.
The Torah comes and warns the king with three prohibitions: Only he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for G-d has said to you, “You shall not return that way again”. Rashi explains, He may only have horses for his chariot, so that he does not cause the people to return to Egypt, for horses come from there, as it is said of Shlomo HaMelech, that a chariot came up and went out from Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for one hundred and fifty.
The Gemara asks (Sanhedrin 21b): Why were the reasons for the Torah’s Mitzvot not revealed? Because in two Pesukim where their reasons were revealed, the greatest of the world, Shlomo HaMelech, stumbled. It is written לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים – He shall not multiply wives for himself; Shlomo HaMelech said, “I will multiply and not stray from the path,” yet we later find it written: וַיְהִי לְעֵת זִקְנַת שְׁלֹמֹה נָשָׁיו הִטּוּ אֶת לְבָבוֹ – And it was in the time of Shlomo’s old age, his wives turned his heart. Additionally, it is written: לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ סוּסִים – He shall not multiply horses for himself, for in the end, he would cause the people to return to Egypt. Shlomo HaMelech said, “I will multiply and not cause them to return,” yet we find: וַתֵּצֵא מֶרְכָּבָה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּשֵׁשׁ – And a chariot went out from Egypt for six, etc.
If the Torah had written a reason why it’s forbidden to light a fire on Shabbat, someone would come and along say, “Back then, it was hard work, but today it’s simple – so why should it still be forbidden?!” Therefore, the Torah comes and says to you: לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, because this is what Hakadosh Baruch Hu wants!
Rav Yerucham of Mir asks: If so, why didn’t Hakadosh Baruch Hu write all the Mitzvot as חֻקִּים – statutes? Why did He provide reasons for some of Mitzvot? He explains (Da’at Torah, Chukat) that we should not think the matter of the Parah Aduma has no true understanding, and therefore we do not know its reason. Shlomo HaMelech sought to understand it, but the reason was beyond him. Hakadosh Baruch Hu made this Mitzvah so complex that we cannot grasp its reason, as it has paradoxical effect – it purifies the impure and defiles the pure. Why? Because such was Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s will in this Mitzvah; not to reveal its reason unlike the other Mitzvot of the Torah where His will was to reveal their reasons.
We always say, and every Jew must know this. Imagine a table. When we see a table, we think we surely understand its purpose – it’s made to eat upon. We also believe we understand its framework – a table is constructed with four legs and a board on top. And if someone were to ask us to consider if it absolutely had to be that way, our immediate response would be: “Yes, of course! That’s how it must be! How could it be any other way?!” But upon deeper reflection, we’d stand astonished by several questions. The table lacks various elements in its existence, because the assumption of “this is how it must be” itself requires reason and explanation! Nevertheless, despite all the doubts that arise regarding these assumptions, in the end, a person feels secure and satisfied in knowing that there is, after all, a reason and framework to what is before him, however faint they are upon deeper reflection. There is, after all, a reason! This is human nature.
With Mitzvot, as stated, there is truly no difference between one and another; they all have טְעָמִים וּמְהַלְּכִים – reasons and frameworks. But Hakadosh Baruch Hu willed that for some, their reasons and frameworks be revealed, and for others, the chukim, their reasons not be revealed. From a educational perspective, if one who teaches students doesn’t provide any reason or logic for what he teaches, he won’t succeed in instilling the subject in his students’ hearts and minds, simply because they have no reason to go with his words. Conversely, if he proceeds to explain every single thing with well-reasoned logic, this is even worse! By providing an abundance of reasons and logic, the teacher will harm the student more than help them. A student who learns from the teacher only because it’s explained to him and because he understands it with his intellect, will never succeed. He will lack the entire connection between student and teacher – how can he ever learn? An expert teacher explains some things to and teaches some others without any reason. Initially, when the student hears something with a reason, he’s excited by it, and he is drawn to the teacher. Through this, the teacher can then fill the student with all good teachings, even without reasons, because the student is now connected to the teacher with faith, and this is the ultimate goal.
The Boreh Olam is the true educator, teaching for our benefit. In the Torah, there are certainly statutes and commandments; and there is no difference in essence between them. There is no difference between Parshat Parah Aduma and Parshat...
