1. MASHIACH’S RED HEIFER
In Hilchos Parah Adumah, Rambam says: “Nine red heifers were offered from the time that they were commanded to fulfill this mitzvah until the time when the Temple was destroyed a second time. The first was brought by Moshe our teacher. The second was brought by Ezra. Seven others were offered from Ezra’s time until the destruction of the {Second} Temple. And the tenth will be brought by the King Mashiach; may he speedily be revealed. Amen, so may it be Hashem’s will.”
This account is based upon the Mishnah. The Mishnah records a dispute regarding the amount of red heifers offered until the destruction of the Second Temple. It cites two opinions, one that seven red heifers were offered, and the other that nine were offered (and the Mishnah recounts “who made them”). Rambam rules (following the Sages’ opinion) that there were nine. He then adds that “the tenth will be brought by the King Mashiach....”
This requires clarification: Mishneh Torah {Rambam’s magnum opus} is not a work of Jewish history, but rather a halachic work (as Rambam himself makes clear in his introduction to Mishneh Torah). The number of red heifers offered over the course of history doesn’t seem to belong in a halachic work. Moreover, (in the words of the Talmud) “what was, was.”
This question only grows stronger in light of Rambam’s conclusion, “and the tenth will be brought by the King Mashiach; may he speedily be revealed. Amen, so may it be Hashem’s will.” {We can’t say that Rambam says this because he is just quoting earlier works, for} this is something that wasn’t even mentioned by our Sages who are assumed to be the Rambam’s source!
One could argue (though this explanation is somewhat forced) that in its own right, the addition of “and the tenth will be brought by the King Mashiach” belongs in Mishneh Torah, since Rambam records laws relevant to the times of Mashiach. He therefore adds that the King Mashiach will also offer a red heifer. However, it remains puzzling why he then adds, “may he speedily be revealed. Amen, so may it be Hashem’s will,” inserting a request and prayer for Mashiach’s arrival into his halachic work!
[It makes sense for Rambam to state the law that a Jew must pray for Mashiach’s arrival in Mishneh Torah (and indeed, in the order of prayer recorded in Mishneh Torah, Rambam records the text of the Amidah, which includes [“requests for all those things that serve as general categories for the desires of each and every person and the needs of the whole community,” including] the prayer for the arrival of Mashiach). However, how does Rambam’s personal prayer for Mashiach’s arrival belong in Mishneh Torah?]
Even if we were to say that it does belong, it would seemingly fit better in the chapters of Mishneh Torah that discuss the “topic” of King Mashiach, in the final two chapters of (Hilchos Melachim, which conclude) Mishneh Torah, where Rambam discusses Mashiach and the times of Mashiach (indeed, there are editions of Mishneh Torah that entitle these two chapters “Hilchos Melachim u’Milchamos u’Melech HaMashiach”).
Yet, in those chapters, Rambam doesn’t insert any prayers or requests for Mashiach’s arrival. Only here, in Hilchos Parah Adumah, where the “topic” is not about Mashiach but rather about the red heifer (with Mashiach being referenced incidentally) does Rambam add this prayer!
2. CONTEXT CLUES
This will be clarified by first prefacing and addressing a change that Rambam makes in this section compared with the original Mishnah:
In the Mishnah, the discussion of the seven (or nine) red heifers follows the halacha, “If they did not find {ashes} from {all} seven {red heifers} they would prepare the sprinkling from {the ashes of} six....” At the beginning of the chapter, the Mishnah explains that seven days before the Kohen would burn the red heifer, he must leave his house, and “they would sprinkle him each of the seven days with {a mixture of the ashes of} all the chataos {red heifers} that were {ever} there” (from the ashes of the red heifers that were burned over the generations, starting from the times of Moshe). Continuing this point, the Mishnah states, “If they did not find {ashes} from {all} seven {red heifers} they would prepare the sprinkling from {the ashes of} six....” It then concludes this discussion with, “Who made them? The first one was made by Moshe....”
By contrast, in Mishneh Torah, this segment follows a different halacha — “The ashes were divided into three portions: one was placed in the chayl, one on the Mount of Olives, and one was divided among all the priestly watches. The one that was divided among all the priestly watches was used by the priests to sanctify themselves. The one that was placed on the Mount of Olives was used by the {entire} Jewish people for sprinkling. And the one that was placed in the chayl was prepared and hidden away, as it states: ‘It shall be for the assembly of Israel as a safekeeping.’ This teaches that it was put away for safekeeping. Indeed, in the chayl, they would put away for safekeeping a portion of the ashes from every red heifer that was burnt.” After this halacha, Rambam continues with “nine red heifers....”
This change reveals a fundamental difference in the meaning of this segment:
According to the Mishnah’s order, this discussion (regarding the red heifers that were offered throughout the generations) follows the description of how the red heifer was prepared in order for its ashes to be used (specifically, for sprinkling on the Kohen who would burn the red heifer).
However, according to Rambam, this discussion follows the halacha that informs us that we must hide away the “ashes from every red heifer” for safekeeping. Interpreting Scripture literally, the purpose of “for safekeeping” is not only that these ashes must be available in case a situation arises when they are needed for sprinkling. Instead (as its name indicates) they were stored away primarily for safekeeping. These ashes were not only needed for the sprinkling procedure of the red heifer, but rather, they served another purpose: The ashes of every red heifer must be stored away for safekeeping (even if we would never need these ashes to sprinkle on someone to purify them from impurity contracted from corpse).
In other words (and on a deeper level): The core obligation of “for safekeeping” is that there should always be ashes “prepared and hidden away”; and in Rasag’s words: “for constant safekeeping of the red heifer” [for this is the essence and meaning of “for safekeeping” — the object must be preserved to exist in posterity]. It follows that “for safekeeping” is not (only) a separate obligation requiring a portion of each individual red heifer’s ashes to be hidden away for safekeeping (just as there is a portion of the ashes that must be given to the Kohanim, and a portion for the Jewish nation). Rather, this is (also) a general and constant obligation (applicable to the red heifer {institution as a whole}):
There must always be ashes of the red heifer hidden away “for safekeeping.”
Consequently, when it comes to the obligation of “for safekeeping,” all ten red heifers constitute one entity, for all of them make up the constant “safekeeping” of the red heifer’s ashes. [This clarifies the need for sprinkling “with {a mixture of the ashes of} all the chataos that were {ever} there” on the Kohen who is burning the red heifer (and only if they couldn’t find ashes from all of them would they sprinkle (at least) from one of them, as mentioned in fn. 4 above)]. This also sheds light (according to the more allusory approach of Torah) on why Rambam also mentions the number of red heifers (and not just when they were offered): by knowing that there are ten, which is (one) complete number — a single unit of ten — it is highlighted that they all make up one entity. Note Rambam’s wording, “and the tenth will be brought...” (and not “and the King Mashiach will offer the tenth”).
3. A CONSTANT PRESENCE
Accordingly, we can posit that this too was Rambam’s intention in referencing the “nine red heifers” that were offered from the times of Moshe until the destruction of the Second Temple:
Once Rambam informs us that there is an obligation to hide away the ashes of the red heifer “for safekeeping,” which is a constant obligation (as explained above), he seeks to support and strengthen this statement, illustrating how this obligation was indeed fulfilled throughout all generations. Therefore, he records the Mishnah’s discussion of the nine red heifers. The Mishnah clearly demonstrates that the ashes of the red heifer were perpetually maintained (as indicated by Rambam’s precise terminology, “Nine red heifers were offered from the time that they were commanded to fulfill this mitzvah until the time when the Temple was destroyed a second time” — showing that the ashes of the red heifer were always preserved “for safekeeping”).
[This can be compared to the beginning of Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, where Rambam discusses “the Tabernacle that Moshe, our teacher, constructed” and delineates the historical progression (the Tabernacle erected in Gilgal, the Tabernacle in Shiloh, Nov, and Givon) culminating with the Temple built in Jerusalem. The same question applies there: “What was, was”?
We have previously explained elsewhere that since Rambam maintains that the command to build the Temple is derived from the verse, “They shall make for me a Sanctuary” (which was conveyed while the Jewish people were in the Wilderness, before they entered the Land of Israel), this constitutes a constant command for all times. Therefore, Rambam goes into detail about the Tabernacles that were set up throughout the generations (until “the Temple was built in Jerusalem”). This serves to emphasize that “They shall make for me a Sanctuary” is a constant command, which was indeed fulfilled throughout the generations (even before they reached Jerusalem)].
Since Rambam also includes the laws of the Messianic era in Mishneh Torah, as discussed above, he must also describe (not only how this was true in the past, “until the time when the Temple was destroyed a second time,” but also) how this will be fulfilled in the “building that is destined to be built” — “And the tenth will be brought by the King Mashiach.”
In light of this explanation, it now becomes clear why Rambam adds “may he speedily be revealed”: Since there is a perpetual obligation for the red heifer’s ashes to be preserved “for safekeeping,” it follows that the mitzvah of the red heifer {essentially} “mandates” the speedy revelation of Mashiach, so that we can once again prepare the ashes of the red heifer.
Every moment without the ashes of the red heifer being safeguarded anywhere the Jewish people reside constitutes a deficiency in the (complete) fulfillment of the command for there to be a constant presence of the red heifer’s ashes “for safekeeping.”
4. AN INSTRUCTIVE PRAYER
However, this is not yet a sufficient explanation, for in their plain sense, Rambam’s words are a request and prayer for Mashiach’s revelation, as evidenced by his explicit statement, “Amen, so may it be Hashem’s will.” The question remains: How does a prayer for Mashiach’s arrival (and revelation) belong in Mishneh Torah?
We must say that this somehow alludes to a halachic idea. As is well known, Rambam’s style is to allude to halachos through his extremely precise wording and deliberate sequencing (especially when the halacha is a novelty of Rambam which is not stated explicitly in the Gemara or elsewhere).
The same is true here: From the fact that Rambam (a) adds a prayer about Mashiach’s arrival (and revelation) and (b) he inserts it not where it (seems) to belong in “Hilchos Mashiach” but instead in Hilchos Parah Adumah specifically (where Mashiach is only brought up incidentally) signals that this prayer is teaching us a halachic concept.
5. RELENTLESS WAIT
We can posit the following explanation:
Rambam rules in Hilchos Melachim regarding the obligation to believe in Mashiach’s arrival: “Anyone who does not believe in him or does not await his coming... denies... the Torah and Moshe, our teacher.” Meaning, it’s not enough for a person to merely believe in Mashiach’s arrival. Instead, a person is obligated to hope for and await his arrival.
If so, it follows that just as the belief in Mashiach’s arrival needs to be constant, the same is true of the obligation to “await his coming”; it is a constant duty. A Jew must constantly hope for and await Mashiach’s arrival; furthermore, as we say during prayer, “for we hope for Your salvation all day.”
This element of “await his coming,” as plainly understood, is a feeling (not merely an intellectual acknowledgment) that stems from a Jew’s sense that he can not be complete without Mashiach’s arrival. Because he feels this way, he constantly yearns for Mashiach’s arrival, feeling that without it, he remains “incomplete.” Accordingly, we can understand that when a person who awaits Mashiach’s arrival mentions anything related to Mashiach, even incidentally, he finds it impossible to “pass it by.” Instead, it immediately arouses his feelings of yearning for Mashiach. This becomes his need, he must pray for it, praying to fill his void — that he should speedily, promptly, and immediately merit Mashiach’s arrival.
This was Rambam’s intention with (a) inserting this prayer, “may he speedily be revealed. Amen, so may it be Hashem’s will,” in the first place; and (b) incorporating the word “speedily” — as soon as possible; and (c) placing it where it does not belong, in Hilchos Parah Adumah. Through these three things, Rambam is highlighting a halacha — the extent a person must “await his coming.” A person must desire it so badly, that even if something about Mashiach is brought up incidentally, in a different context, it must immediately elicit a prayer of “may he speedily be revealed. Amen, so may it be Hashem’s will!” from him.
[There is obviously no place to ask why Rambam adds this prayer (“may he speedily be revealed. Amen, so may it be Hashem’s will”) specifically in Hilchos Parah Adumah and not every time he mentions Mashiach throughout Mishneh Torah? This is because, as discussed above, Mishneh Torah is a halachic work, designed to inform us of the laws of the Torah. Similarly here: Rambam’s addition of this prayer is (not an aspect of Rambam’s personal practice — which would indeed raise the question of why he didn’t follow this practice consistently — but rather) intended to teach us the halacha involved. This being the case, stating it once suffices (just as all other halachos in Mishneh Torah need only be stated once.)]
6. A PURIFYING SPRINKLE
Every element of Torah is extremely precise. We must therefore say that the fact that Rambam teaches us this halacha (about the extent of the obligation to “await his coming”) in the middle of Hilchos Parah Adumah, even though the topic of Mashiach was already mentioned (also incidentally) by Rambam before this section of laws, is because of a substantive connection that links the ashes of the red heifer with the arrival (and revelation) of Mashiach.
The explanation:
Aside from the mitzvah of the red heifer “requiring” the revelation of Mashiach (as mentioned above, end of Section 3), the content of the mitzvah itself is connected to the Redemption.
