INTPARSHA62 -34: Parashat Chukat

From: Yeshivat Har Etzion Office <office@etzion.org.il>
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
Subject: INTPARSHA62 -34: Parashat Chukat

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************

INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA

PARASHAT CHUKAT

Putting the Red Heifer Into Context
by Rav David Silverberg

The drama of Parashat Chukat includes the shocking
decree of death upon the national leaders of Benei Yisrael,
Moshe and Aharon, the death of the third leader, Miriam the
prophetess, and culminates with the people's stunning
military victory over the powerful armies of the East Bank
of the Jordan River. Incongruously, the parasha begins with
a seemingly dry, technical presentation of laws that we
would have perhaps expected to find in Vayikra. Parashat
Chukat begins with the laws of the para aduma (the red
heifer) whose ashes alone can divest one of the tum'a
(ritual impurity) contracted through contact with a dead
body. Recall that the Vayikra devotes a large section in
the middle of the sefer to the guidelines of ritual purity
and impurity. Vayikra addresses all forms of tum'a -
whether from dead animals or insects, leprosy, or bodily
emissions - with the exception of tum'at met the impurity
generated by the remains of a deceased human. Thus, the
Torah seems to have extracted the Red Heifer from its
natural location in Vayikra and transplanted it, in a
foreign context in between the stories of Korach's revolt
(chapters 16-18) and Miriam's death (beginning of chapter
20).

The para aduma appears out of context not only
thematically, but chronologically, as well. Benei Yisrael
already required the ashes of red heifer earlier, in order
to enable them to perform sacrificial service in the
Tabernacle, which require a state of purity. Anyone who
came in contact with a dead body could not enter the sacred
ground before undergoing the process of purification
involving the ashes of the heifer. We must conclude,
therefore, that these rules had in fact been transmitted
earlier, when the Tabernacle was erected. What more, the
Torah makes explicit reference to the ashes of the para
aduma several parshiyot earlier, in Parashat Beha'alotekha,
where they played a role in the consecration ceremony of the
Levites (8:7 - "mei chatat"). Indeed, in the chronology
known as "Seder Olam Rabba," which dates back to the period
of the Mishna, the initial red heifer ritual is said to have
occurred on the second of Nissan, at least several months
before the incident of Korach. If the Torah delayed its
presentation of these laws to this point, it must have seen
some relationship between the red heifer and the current
location. The relevance of the red heifer to this context
within Sefer Bemidbar will be the focus of our attention in
this week's shiur.

The Red Heifer and Korach's Uprising

Several commentators view chapter 19, the Torah's
discussion of the para aduma, as an appendix of sorts to the
story of Korach's rebellion. Chizkuni, for example, suggests
a purely pragmatic association between Korach and the para
aduma. Korach's uprising yielded tragic consequences: the
death of Korach's entire following, including the two
hundred and fifty men who were consumed by fire after
offering an unwarranted incense offering. In addition, a
divine plague killed 17,400 people from among Benei Yisrael
in the aftermath of the uprising (see 17:6-15). According
to Chizkuni, the sudden deaths that struck the nation
resulted in widespread tum'a, thus accounting for the sudden
introduction of the laws concerning the red heifer.
Abarbanel, who also adopts this view, adds that the original
supply of ashes was simply depleted by the high death toll,
thus necessitating the production of more ashes.

While this approach does, indeed, identify a connection
of sorts between the incident of Korach and the para aduma,
it does not convincingly explain why this connection
warrants transplanting chapter 19 from Vayikra. Even if the
recent tragedy did require Moshe to replenish the supply of
ashes, why should this coincidental association require the
seemingly awkward sequence of presentation? It would seem
that only a thematic, rather than incidental, relationship
between Korach and the red heifer would justify the Torah's
arrangement far more persuasively.

Ramban indeed suggests a topical association between
Korach and the para aduma. Immediately following the
account of Korach's uprising and failure, the Torah proceeds
to enumerate the "matenot kehuna," the gifts due to a kohen
from the rest of the nation. In response to Korach's
revolt, which included a challenge to Aharon's right to the
priesthood (see 16:10), God reaffirms Aharon's stature and
lists the nation's obligations towards him and his
offspring, the kohanim. According to Ramban, the laws of
the red heifer simply continue elaborating on the
institution of the priesthood, as it is the kohen who
prepares the purifying ashes of the heifer and sprinkles
them on the individual seeking purification. Thus, this
chapter merely continues the discussion begun in the
previous parasha concerning the rights, privileges and
responsibilities of the kohen.

In the nineteenth century, Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda
Berlin of Volozhin - the Netziv - posits that the concept
represented by the red heifer is meant to contrast with the
arguments posed by Korach and his following. The two
hundred and fifty protesters objected to the exclusivity of
the priesthood, its restriction to Aharon and his sons.
They argued, "for the entire congregation is holy" (16:3),
everyone deserves the privilege of ministering in the
Mishkan. The Netziv explains that this faction sought a
level of "kedusha" (sanctity) that was off-limits to them;
they tried to breach the barriers erected by God Himself and
boldly assume for themselves the distinguished position of
priesthood. The response to their presumptuousness is the
para aduma, which embodies the concept of tahara (purity)
rather than kedusha. Instead of focusing their energies on
attaining levels of sanctity restricted to the kohanim,
these men should have instead sought the more basic level of
purity. As opposed to kedusha, which involves an ascent or
progression beyond one's current condition, tahara means
working within one's assigned domain and ensuring its
spiritual propriety. It is this concept of tahara that the
institution of the red heifer symbolizes, and that the Torah
sought to underscore in the wake of the tragedy of Korach's
revolt.

We may suggest yet another basis for associating the
story of Korach with the laws of the heifer by viewing
Korach's uprising from a different perspective. Rabbi
Joseph Dov Soloveitchik (Rabbi Abraham Besdin, "Reflections
of the Rav," volume 1, chapter 13) describes Korach's revolt
as "the common-sense rebellion against Torah authority."
Rashi (Bemidbar 16:1), cites a passage from the Midrash
describing how Korach ridiculed certain laws in an attempt
to challenge Moshe's authority to interpret God's will.
According to Rabbi Soloveitchik, "for the entire
congregation is holy" expressed a conviction not of
intrinsic equality of stature, but rather of intellectual
equality. All those who stood at Sinai, Korach insisted,
reserved the right to interpret the Torah received at Sinai.

We may perhaps understand the introduction of the red
heifer in this context as God's response to Korach's
theological revolution. In the Midrash and classic
commentaries, the institution of para aduma constitutes the
quintessential chok, a statute whose rationale eludes human
comprehension. Some sources focus on the specific enigma
that while one becomes ritually pure by having the heifer's
ashes sprinkled on him, everyone involved in the process of
preparing the ashes or the sprinkling itself becomes impure
(Tanchuma Yashan, 23; Midrash Tehillim 9). Ramban, in his
opening comments to the parasha, points to the anomaly that
the kohen must slaughter the cow outside the area of the
Mishkan; normally the Torah strictlyforbids conducting any
sacrificial ritual outside the Mishkan.

In another Midrash, the very concept of purification by
sprinkling cow's ashes is the source of wonder:

"A cergentile asked Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakai, 'These
things that you do appear as some sort of sorcery! You
bring a cow, burn it, crush it, take its ashes,
sprinkle on one who had been defiled by dead body two
or three drops and then tell him that he is pure!' He
answered him, 'Have you ever seen one who was stricken
by the force of lichen?' He said to him, 'Yes.' He
said, 'And what do they do for him?' He said to him,
'They bring roots [of a plant], smoke them underneath
him, pour water and it [i.e. the illness] runs away.'
He said to him, 'Your ears should hear what comes forth
from your mouth! This force is impurity. They sprinkle
upon it purifying waters, and it runs away.' After he
[the gentile] left, the students asked him [Rabban
Yochanan], 'Our rabbi, him you answered easily; but
what do you say to us?' He said to them, 'I swear that
the corpse does not defile and the waters do not
purify. But the Almighty said, I instituted a statute,
I issued a decree, you are forbidden to violate My
decrees.'" (Bemidbar Rabba, 19:8)

Rabban Yochanan tells his disciples that we have neither the
ability nor the need to uncover the mystery behind this
ritual. Indeed, the Sages taught that even King Solomon
himself emerged empty-handed from his attempts to identify
the underlying rationale of the red heifer.

Para aduma, then, perhaps signifies the limit of human
comprehension with regard to divine law. As much as man is
encouraged to explore, study, theorize and inquire, he must
maintain an awareness of the inadequacy of the human
intellect to fully comprehend divine wisdom. Korach's
intelligence (see Rashi, beginning of Parashat Korach)
prompted him to challenge Moshe's legal authority; he felt
he could apply his own reasoning and intuition in
determining God's will. The red heifer represents the
fallacy of Korach's claim, and underscores the inherent
limitation of man's intellectual capabilities.

In this light we may further develop the association
drawn by the Sages between the red heifer and the sin of the
golden calf:

This is analogous to a maidservant's son who dirties
the royal palace; the king said, let his mother come
and clean the filth. So did the Almighty say, let the
cow come to atone for the incident of the calf.
(Bemidbar Rabba 19:8)

Rashi, after his standard commentary to chapter 19, cites at
length the homiletic interpretations of Rabbi Moshe ha-
Darshan to the specific laws regarding the red heifer,
demonstrating their symbolic reference to the golden calf.

Wherein lies the conceptual relationship between the
golden calf and red heifer?

The answer perhaps emerges from a careful reading of
one Midrashic passage (cited in the work, "Derashot Ibn
Shuib," as well as in "Torah Sheleima" to 19:2) concerning
the para aduma's role in atoning for the calf. Among the
requirements of the red heifer is that it must be temima,
free of blemishes (19:2). The Midrash explains this
requirement as follows: "Since they [the Israelites] did not
walk with the Creator with 'temimut' [when they worshipped
the golden calf], it must therefore be 'temima.'" The
Midrash here works with a play on words, associating two
different (albeit related) meanings of the expression,
temimut. Besides its basic meaning, as physical wholeness
or perfection, the term also denotes innocent faith and
unquestioning loyalty (see especially Devarim 18:13.) In
fact, in a different Midrash, the Sages employ the
expression temimut to describe the attitude required towards
the enigma latent within the para aduma. As cited earlier,
the Midrash Tehillim (9) tells of King Solomon's failed
attempt to decipher the logical underpinnings of this law.
God then responds: "Act with uprightness, act with 'temimut'
- I issued a decree, I instituted a statute, and no one can
question it." The law of the red heifer, then, requires an
element of "innocence," passive acceptance and unconditional
fidelity, that atones for the lack of "innocence" that
surfaced with the sin of the golden calf.

Several commentators have understood the sin of the
calf not as outright idolatry - after all, how could a
nation that beheld God's Revelation just forty days earlier
worship another deity?! - but rather as misdirected human
initiative in the service of God. Benei Yisrael
independently decided to fashion a physical representation
of the Almighty. For this reason, according to several
views of the Sages and the later commentators, Benei Yisrael
earned atonement for this sin by constructing the
Tabernacle. Throughout its narrative of the construction
(in Parshiyot Vayakhel-Pekudei), the Torah repeatedly
emphasizes that Benei Yisrael built the Mishkan and its
various accessories "ka'asher tziva Hashem" - precisely as
God had commanded. They atone for their error by
submissively following orders and obeying God's word rather
than following their own intuition and independently
deciding on the proper mode of worship.

In one sense, perhaps, Korach's insurrection
reintroduced the fundamental error of the golden calf.
Though Benei Yisrael built the Mishkan precisely "as God had
commanded Moshe," they now seek to use it as they wish,
disregarding the restrictions outlined in Sefer Vayikra.
They reject Moshe's authority and claim the right to
individually determine how to serve God. This is an
appropriate time, then, for a reminder of the para aduma, to
atone for presumptuous innovation through the humble
submission to, and unconditional acceptance of, God's law.

The Red Heifer and the Thirty-eight "Missing" Years

Until now, we have discussed different possible
connections linking the law of the red heifer with the
incident of Korach as a basis for their textual proximity.
An entirely different approach, however, would be to
identify the relationship between the para aduma and that
which follows this chapter, rather than the preceding
parasha.

The section of the para aduma is followed by chapter
20, which tells of the death of Miriam, the sudden threat
posed by a shortage of water, and the decree issued against
Moshe and Aharon prohibiting them from entering Canaan.
When studying this chapter, we are initially struck less by
its content than by its chronology. Virtually all
commentators agree that chapter 20 takes us on a giant, 38-
year leap forward, from the second year of the nation's
travel through the wilderness to the fortieth. Several
compelling indications to this effect appear in the text
(see Rav Moshe Aberman's VBM shiur on this subject from
5757, available in the VBM archives). This means that the
Torah includes no record whatsoever of the interim thirty-
eight years. As far as we know, all that occurs during
these years is the death of the generation of the scouts and
the rise of the new generation that will enter Canaan. This
period, running from Korach's uprising to the death of
Miriam, is represented by a single chapter - chapter 19, the
laws of the para aduma. Perhaps, then, we must search for
some connection between the red heifer ritual and these
thirty-eight years.

Instinctively, the notion of "purification" might come
to mind. The sprinkling of the heifer's ashes cleanses the
individual of ritual impurity, enabling him to enter the
Tabernacle and interact with the Shekhina. Similarly, Benei
Yisrael's wandering in the desert, as decreed in response to
the sin of the scouts, is meant as a period of spiritual
regeneration, to prepare the nation for entry into the
Promised Land. The incident of the spies revealed that
Benei Yisrael were not prepared for life in God's country;
an extended period of purification was necessary for them to
develop the required trust in God's ability to protect them
as they conquer and settle Canaan. In this sense, perhaps,
the purification process required of one who had contracted
tum'a serves as an accurate, symbolidescription of the
thirty-eight-year sojourn through the wilderness.

Rav Soloveitchik, however, in an elaborate discourse on
this issue and the nature of para aduma in general, points
to the particular theme of death and Judaism's response to
it in explaining the relevanof this chapter to the "missing"
thirty-eight years (Rabbi Abraham Besdin's "Reflections of
the Rav," vol. 2, chapter 11). The ashes of the para aduma
are necessary in only one instance of ritual impurity:
contact with the remains of a human being. Other forms of
tum'a are resolved through immersion in the mikve or natural
spring. Contact with human mortality, Rav Soloveitchik
explained, is a particularly traumatic experience, because
man directly encounters his own death and impermanence. One
can overcome this trauma only by turning to God Himself for
reassurance. One therefore receives purification from the
kohen, the representative of the Almighty Himself. The
sprinkling of the para aduma symbolizes God's purification
of the individual that has experienced the most morbid of
all forms of impurity. Only one's absolute dependence on
God can help him properly deal with the effects of such an
encounter with death.

Rabbi Soloveitchik explains the relevance of this
concept to the thirty-eight year period, which saw little
more than the death of the generation that left Egypt, as
follows:

The symbol of this mournful period is the para aduma,
which removes defilements derived from human death. It
represents a triumph over death, an affirmation of
life, and qualifies one to resume participation in
matters of kedusha. As explained earlier, God is the
ultimate purifier who helps us overcome the depression
of morbidity. Para aduma is an appropriate transition
between the period of rejection and death, and the
resumption of divine communication. in the fortieth
year of their wanderings.

The Torah bridges the gap between the doomed generation of
the spies and the generation that enters the Promised Land
with the message of the para aduma: the Jewish response to
death, which entails turning to the Almighty for reassurance
and relying on His infinite compassion.

We might add to this approach the comments of one of
our early commentators, Rabbenu Yossef Bekhor Shor (from the
Tosafist period). He enumerates several stringent measures
unique to the ritual impurity generated by a human corpse,
which we do not find in other types of tum'a. First and
foremost, as mentioned, impurity contracted from contact
with a corpse requires the sprinkling of the ashes of the
red heifer for purification to occur. Second, one who
contracted tum'a from a corpse requires a seven-day period
of purification, while many other forms of impurity require
only a single day. Third, one becomes impure even when
situated under the same roof as a corpse; no actual contact
is required. Rabbi Bekhor Shor explains this unique
stringency with a bold thesis: the Torah seeks to discourage
people from coming in contact with the dead. Although in
cases of family tragedy and the like one is required to tend
to the needs of the deceased, as a general rule the Torah
frowns upon excessive preoccupation with death. One is to
respond to death by focusing on life, by doubling his
efforts to continue forward even in the face of calamity.

The laws of tum'at met (ritual impurity generated by a
corpse), then, reflect the Torah's attitude discouraging
excessive dwelling on death. Accordingly, the Torah says
nothing about the thirty-eight years of death in the
wilderness; from its perspective, these years simply marked
the transition from one generation to the next. In effect,
the Torah transforms the otherwise disheartening, even
morbid, demise of a generation into a natural progression
from parents to children, from the Exodus and Revelation at
Sinai to the long-awaited entry into Canaan. This bridge
between doom and hope, between death and rejuvenation, is
formed by the red heifer, a powerful symbol of the Torah's
insistence on focusing on life, even when confronting death.

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433

**********************************************************************