Our Parasha opens with the Mitzvah of the red cow:(19:1-2): ’Hashem spoke to Moshe and Aaron, saying:This is חוקת : the statute of the Torah, which Hashem has commanded; saying: Speak to Bnei Israel, and they shall take to you a perfectly red unblemished cow…’.
The Torah then relates the details of this Mitzvah, through which one who has become impure by contact with a dead corpse, is purified.
The parshanim all comment on the wondrous outcome of this Mitzvah, as the Sforno comments: ’All who engage in it have to be pure, yet, by their involvement, become impure, yet, at the same time, it purifies those who were impure.’
Rashi comments on this, saying: ‘Because Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel, saying: ‘What is this Mitzvah, and what purpose does it have?’. Therefore, the Torah uses the term חקת: ‘statute’. I have decreed it. You have no right to challenge it.’
Rav Eliezer Mizrachi, on this Rashi, adds: ’We find in several places in the Torah the word חוקה::statute, but we don’t find there the addition of ‘it is a decree before Me, and you have no permission to question it.’
‘Here it is different, because it is written ‘תורה וחוקה׳: both ‘Torah’ and ‘statute’, when it would be enough to write only one of the two, as in: ’A man should die in the tent’, or ‘this is the Torah of the olah, the chataat and the asham’, which alludes to His commandments, as these are called mitzvot, from the root of tzivui, and sometimes called ‘Torah’, from the root of hora’ah, since His commandments are His הוראה: His teaching, and sometimes are called ‘chukat’, alluding to His statutes, because His mitzvot are His statutes, and sometimes called ‘mishpatim’, because His mitzvot are also His judgements.’
The Siftei Chachamim elucidates:’Rashi notes the language used in the passuk: ‘chukat’ and ‘the Torah’, when clearly the use of either one by itself, would not have posed a difficulty, as we find in many places in the Torah, one of these two words without the other.
‘Here, the use of both compelled Rashi to his exposition - that it comes to teach that the decree of the red cow has no purpose of which we are aware - but is a statute from Hashem, and is to be obeyed even though its purpose is not known to Israel.’
The Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh proffers a novel answer to our enquiry: ‘We need to understand why the Torah calls this mitzvah by the general name ‘the Torah’, as it should have said:’this is the statute..’ or: ’this is the statute of impurity’, or: ’’the statute of purification’.
‘We cannot say that it intended to require the purification of the ashes of the red cow, to engage in Torah, as our Sages have taught that divrei Torah do not become impure.
‘The answer can be found in the teaching of our Sages, that contact with the corpse of a non-Jew does not render a Jew impure, it being deemed as if he did not come into contact with it.
‘The reason for the differentiation, is that we were elevated from the rest of the nations, by our receipt of the Torah - and this is why the Torah here says: ’This is the statute of the Torah’: meaning: this statute of impurity and the manner of purification from it, devolve from the Torah, as, by its acceptance, we have become an object that those of a lesser spiritual level, yearning to cleave to.
‘Therefore, only through the great power that Hashem legislated in this mitzvah of the red cow, are we able to be separated from the impurity of the dead corpse.
‘This can be likened to two vessels of a person, one filled with honey, the other with refuse.
‘Were they both to be placed outside the house the one filled with honey would attract all the flies and insects, unlike the one filled with refuse, which they would leave alone.
‘So too, when a Jew dies, he being full of the sweetness of the Torah and mitzvot, when his soul departs from his body, all the forces of impurity gather around, seeking to cleave to the sweetness - thereby bringing their impurity to the place.
‘This is not so where the corpse is that of a non-Jew, which has none of this sweetness, there is no gathering of the forces of impurity, the difference devolving from the Torah.’
The Ben Ish Hai, in his unique manner, focuses on the word:’saying’, in the passuk:’This is the statute of the Torah, which Hashem has commanded, saying..’, expounding:
’The completeness of a mitzvah is through the learning, as to fulfill the mitzvah in deed it is not possible to perform all the 365 positive mitzvot.
‘This is alluded to by the words:’This is the statute of the Torah, which Hashem has commanded, saying..’, to teach that on the saying, the mitzvah depends.
‘This can perhaps be understood by the saying of out Sages:’Do not say that I cannot eat the meat of a pig, but say: I can, but it is forbidden by the decree of my heavenly Father’, or that ‘I cannot spill blood’, and the like, but say that I obey because Hashem commands.’
Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, on the wording of our mitzvah, comments:’’It doesn’t say ‘the statute of the red cow’, but ‘the Torah of..’.
‘The mitzvah of the red cow was already given at Mara, together with the mitzvah of Shabbat and other edicts, as Hashem wanted to make known to Israel before Matan Torah, the three types of mitzvot, which they were to accept at Sinai, and to try them, as the Torah there relates: ’’And there He tested them’, if they were ready to accept them.
‘The three types of mitzvot were: ’The logical mitzvot, which man would understand and accept by himself; second::those which, on contemplation, man would accept, though he would not come to them by himself- such as Shabbat; and, third, the statutes, whose purpose was not revealed, prime among them, the mitzvah of the red cow.
‘The test was in all the three types, the mitzvah of the red cow was chosen - from the third type - because of its internal contradictions, apart from its purpose being concealed from man’s limited intelligence.
‘When the Torah came to teach the details of the mitzvah of the red cow, it emphasized that ‘this is the statute of the Torah’, of which I told you at Mara, as the Torah that I am going to give you, has statutes which are wondrous in the minds of men, the most difficult of them being the red cow.’
Rav Elya Lopian brings our Rashi, adding: ’Whilst literally it refers to the red cow, there is also here an allusion to the manner in which Hashem relates to the nation of Israel, which is also as by way of a statute, meaning:’it is a decree from Him, and you have no permission to query it.’
‘Our Sages, in Yalkut Shimoni, liken every detail of the mitzvah of the red cow, to the relationship of Hashem and Bnei Israel, both as praise and as, in the instances it describes, as a rebuke to them.
‘The midrash concludes with the exile of the nation, alluded to by the words in the Torah:’He shall place its ashes outside the camp in a pure place’, the ‘ashes’ being the exiles of Israel, ‘the pure place’ being Jerusalem, to where we will be redeemed.
‘The midrash likens Bnei Israel, as praise, to ‘an unblemished red cow’, but, when rebuking us, it describes us ‘as like a rebellious cow’, not as ‘a rebellious cow’ - clearly a praise.
‘This teaches that, even when we do not fully measure up to what is required of us, we are still praiseworthy - despite our transgressions which caused our exiles and tribulations - we still do not distance ourselves from our Source of life.
‘To better understand this, let us note that there are two types of statutes in all societies throughout the generations.
‘The first are those promulgated by the king and the government, for the people, all of which are enshrined in the statute books. There are many types of punishments - some severe, some lighter - for offenders.
‘The second type is the orders of doctors, as to the manner in which we conduct our daily life. Failure to heed their orders, likewise, can lead to consequences, sometimes severe, sometimes minor.
‘Despite the superficial similarities, there is a major difference between the two types: transgressions against the statutes of the authorities, only result in punishment if the transgressor is caught, and judged guilty.
‘Further, the authorities, even after the offender is adjudged, can commute, or even pardon the transgressor.
‘Not so, one who disobeys the doctor’s orders, the consequences inevitably follow, be it even the death of the patient - in the extreme case - to severe illness and affliction, in the other cases.
‘Into which category do the statutes of the Torah fall? We find, in the Torah ( Beshalach 15:26), the words:’And He said: If you heed and obey the voice of Hashem, your G-d..all the ailments which I imposed in Egypt, I will not impose on you, because I am Hashem , your doctor’.
‘The plain meaning, comments Rashi, is, ‘I am Hashem, your doctor’, who teaches you Torah, so that you will be spared them, like the doctor who tells his patient: Do not eat those foods which caused your illness.’
‘We learn, that the punishments from Above, are in the nature of ailments, and Hashem - who is the One who commands - is like a doctor; further, alluding to Hashem’s love for us, He comforts us: ’All the ailments which I imposed in Egypt, I will not impose on you’.
‘This is the underlying message of our psukim:’They shall take a completely red cow’, all in praise of Israel, especially the concluding words:’which is unblemished’.
‘To what can this be likened? To a sick person who comes before the doctor, who asks him if this illness is genetic in his family, as, if so, it is very difficult to cure.
‘If it is not genetic, but the result of contact with others who were infected, it is much easier to cure.
‘This is the meaning of the words:’In which there is no blemish’, meaning that on occasion, Israel is not unblemished, but the blemish is not ‘in them’ - in their blood and their souls, as they are the children of the holy forefathers, so any blemish is not, as it were, genetic, but came to them from outside.
‘Our Rashi comments that the Torah used the word חקת: statute, because its purpose is concealed from us, and, as Rashi brings: ‘it is a decree from Me, you have no permission to question it.’
‘We find, that the mitzvah of the red cow, is from the first category, like the decree of the king, and not like the order of the doctor, and that any מום: blemish, is not ‘in them’, but because ( Ps’ 106:35 )’And they mingled among the nations, and learned from their ways’, and therefore could be purified, as in this mitzvah, from the impurity, and ’a pure man’ - an allusion to Hashem - ‘shall gather the ash of the cow’ - from their exiles - ‘to a pure place’: Jerusalem.’
Rav Yosef Salant opens his commentary, by asking: ’Why did Hashem conceal from all men - even the wise Solomon - the purpose of the mitzvah of the red cow.
M The question is strengthened, by the passuk in Parashat Dvarim (4: 5-8 )’Behold, I have taught you חוקים : statutes and משפטים: ordinances..; And you shall keep them and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the people, who will hear all these חוקים and say: ‘Only this great nation is a wise and understanding people’.
‘This passuk suggests that, had Hashem revealed to Bnei Israel the purpose of this mitzvah of the red cow, the nations would not have mocked Bnei Israel, and we would have been considered by them as ‘a wise and understanding people’.
‘But now, when we answer them, that it is a statute from Hashem, which we fulfill without knowing its purpose, but only because it is the decree of Hashem, without knowing its purpose, we do not appear in their eyes as wise and understanding - which seemingly is not the will of Hashem.
‘A further question: the Midrash describing this Mitzvah, differs in its words from that brought by Rashi, saying:’Said Hashem: a statute I have enacted, a decree I have decreed, you are not permitted to transgress my decree.’.
‘Why the duplication of ‘a statute I have enacted’, and ‘a decree I have decreed’?
‘The actual mitzvah, with its contradictions - the pure becoming impure, whilst the impure are purified -is clearly beyond the understanding of even the wisest of men.
‘We can perhaps understand the reason for the concealment of its purpose from us, to train us in the performance of mitzvot, even though they may appear strange to our minds, so that when an unfortunate event befalls man - or someone else - he will not come to question Hashem’s conduct - such as why something bad, to our minds, befalls a righteous man, or the corollary - good fortune is the lot of the wicked.
‘This was the very question that Moshe Rabbeinu posed to Hashem, after the sin of the golden calf, to which - our Sages say (Brachot 7. ) Hashem did not answer, instead saying that He grants mercy to the one He has mercy on, even if he does not merit it.
‘This vexing question has caused many to fall by the wayside.
‘To instill in us the emunah that we do not know, and cannot hope to understand the manner in which Hashem’s ways and His conduct of this world, Hashem gave us the mitzvah of the red cow, which we cannot understand, as it is seemingly totally self-contradictory - purifying the impure whilst at the same time, rendering the pure, impure - to train us in its performance, despite not understanding its purpose.
‘As contact with a dead corpse cannot be avoided in our present situation, due to the needs of burial and all connected with it, this impurity is part and parcel of daily life.
‘Well known is the dictum of the Rambam, that ‘all is according to the deeds’, that they are what shape a person, and acquire a hold in his soul.
‘This is the case in regard to charity - and no less so, in the instance of the mitzvah of the red cow.
‘Due to the regularity in our world of impurity from contact with a dead corpse - as we have brought - the purpose of which we do not understand, yet accept, so too, it leads us to accept other decrees from Above which are beyond our understanding, and, even, contradict it.’
Comcludes the Rav: ’This is why this unfathomable mitzvah was given to us, that we should perform it as a חוק, to teach us, that just as we perform mitzvot whose purpose is being beyond our understanding, so too, we must accept His decrees, even when they are not in accord with our understanding.
‘This is the purport of the double wording in the Midrash, to which we alluded:’the statutes that I have enacted’, and ‘the decrees that I have decreed’ - in neither case, do we have permission to question them.’
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/392882
No comments:
Post a Comment