Torah Studies: Chukat

Adapted by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks; From the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe

Chukat begins with an account of the Red Heifer, a strange practice whose object was the purification of those who had become contaminated through contact with the dead. The heifer was burned, and its ashes, mixed with water, sprinkled on those who had become defiled. But the paradox was that though it purified them, it made impure all those who were involved in its preparation. Thus it is called, in the Sidra’s second verse, a chukah (“ordinance”)—a technical term meaning, “law for which no reason can be given.” Rashi gives this explanation for the word, but his comment has some unusual features which the Sicha first points out, and then explains, showing that it is intelligible only if we distinguish two different kinds of chukah.

1. Rashi’s Comment Analyzed

“And the L-rd spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: This is the ordinance (chukat) of the Torah which the L-rd has commanded….”

Rashi interprets the phrase, “this is the ordinance of the Torah” thus: “Because Satan and the nations of the world provoke Israel, saying, ‘what is the meaning of this commandment to you and what is its reason?,’ therefore it is described as an ‘ordinance’ it is a decree about which you have no right to speculate.”

But there are difficulties here:

(i) From the words of Rashi—“therefore it is described as an ‘ordinance’”—it is apparent that he intended not to explain the meaning of the word “ordinance” itself—which he has already done previously on many occasions. Rather, Rashi wants to explain the fact that it appears to be superfluous, since the phrase “this is the law” would have been sufficient.

(ii) Also, there are several differences between Rashi’s answer here, and in earlier places, which require understanding. In earlier comments the agent provocateur is the “evil inclination”; here it is “Satan.” In these earlier places, he is represented as “raising objections” or “caviling”; Here, as “provoking.” And in one earlier comment, one is said to be forbidden to “exempt oneself” from the ordinances; here one is forbidden to “speculate about them.”

(iii) If our earlier reasoning is correct, Rashi’s comment applies only to the seeming superfluity of the word “ordinance.” Why then should it bear the heading “this is the ordinance of the law,” as if Rashi intended to explain the whole phrase?

2. Within Reason and Beyond

The explanation is as follows: The wording of the phrase, “this is the ordinance of the law” suggests that the law of the Red Heifer is the only ordinance in the Torah. But surely there are other ordinances, like the prohibition of eating the meat of pig or wearing clothes made of a mixture of wool and linen. Therefore, we are forced to say that there is a special class of ordinance, of which the Red Heifer is the only example; that is, that there are two kinds of ordinance:

(i) those which could in principle be understood by human intelligence, but details of which are beyond comprehension;

(ii) those which are entirely beyond the scope of human understanding.

The phrase “this is the ordinance of the law” is thus intended to indicate that the law of the Red Heifer is alone in belonging to the second category. The “waters of purification” (water mingled with the ashes of the Red Heifer) is something whose principle can be understood rationally. Hence the waters belong to the first class of ordinances—decrees which are partially intelligible. But the laws of the Red Heifer itself are entirely beyond understanding.

3. G-d and Man

In the light of this, we can understand why Rashi uses expressions here (“Satan” as opposed to “evil inclination”: “Provokes” in place of “raising objections”; and “forbidden to speculate” instead of “forbidden to exempt oneself from them”) which do not occur in his other explanations of the word “ordinance.”

It is clear that G-d’s intellect surpasses man’s. But since the Red Heifer is entirely inaccessible to reason, it cannot be “refuted” by the evil inclination or the nations of the world. All they can do is to “provoke” the Jew. Thus Rashi uses the word “Satan” instead of the “evil inclination”—for the skeptical voice seeks here only to trouble a Jew at the moment of acting, not to dissuade him from it at all.

The reason is (as Rashi continues), that the Red Heifer is a “decree” of G-d: That is, that G-d Himself is telling us not to be perturbed by the absence of a rationale, and to do it simply because G-d so decrees. This is the only way that it can be properly fulfilled.

(Source: Likkutei Sichot, Vol. VIII pp. 123-7)