“This is the law of the Torah that Hashem commanded
saying, "Speak to Bnai Yisrael and they should take for you a completely
red cow that has no blemish and has never born a yoke” (BeMidbar 19:2)
Rashi is probably the most widely studied commentary
on the Chumash. There are many comments
of Rashi that are well-know and widely quoted.
Unfortunately, in some cases these comments are quoted so frequently
that we neglect to consider them carefully.
As soon as we hear the beginning of the comment, we finish the quote in
our minds and do not even think carefully about Rashi’s observation. The first comment of Rashi on this week’s parasha
is one of those oft quoted texts, which may need more attention than it
normally receives.
Before considering Rashi’s comments, let us first
carefully study the pasuk it is intended to interpet. The pasuk above introduces the laws of the Parah Adumah – the red
heifer. This animal is slaughtered and
completely burned. The ashes of the
heifer, with other ingredients, are required for the purification. Severe forms of spiritual defilement are
treated with these ashes.
The passage describes the mitzvah of Parah Adumah as
chukat ha’torah. In the translation
above, this has been rendered to mean “the law of the Torah.” But this translation is an
oversimplification. The term chok – as
in chukat – is used widely in the Chumash.
The term generally has three meanings.
In most instances the term is used to identify the permanence of a mitzvah
or law. In fact, the Torah clearly
makes this connection by frequently using the term chok in the phrase chukat
olam – a permanent chok. For example,
the Chumash tells us the observance of Pesach is a chukat olam – a chok for all
generations.[1] Here, the term chok communicates this idea
of permanence.
In some instances the term chok refers to a right or
portion assigned to a person or group by some authority. For example, there was a chok in Yosef’s
time that the leaders of Egypt were awarded by Paroh a portion of land.[2] Similarly, the Chumash tells us that after
the death of Nadav and Avihu, Moshe instructed the remaining kohanim that
despite this tragedy they must still eat their chok – their portion – from the
sacrifices offered that day.[3]
However, there are some instances in which neither
of these translations seems appropriate.
In these cases, the term chok seems to communicate that the law is a
decree from Hashem. For example, in
explaining the laws of Pesach Sheynee – a Pesach sacrifice brought by those who
could not offer the sacrifice at its normal time – Moshe explains that the
Pesach sacrifice must be offered according to all of its chukotav – according
to its chok.[4] In this instance it is clear that the term chok
does not mean “portion” and does not seem to be a reference to the permanence
of the law for all generations.
Therefore, in this instance and in other cases in which the first two
translations do not apply, Targum Unkelus renders the term to mean “decree.”
So, what is the meaning of the term chok in our
passage? Clearly it does not mean
“portion” and there is no obvious reason to assume that the term is a reference
to permanence. It is not surprising
that Targum Unkelus renders the term to mean “decree.”
It is now possible to more accurately translate our pasuk
as “this is the decree of the torah.”
However, the meaning – and even the translation – of the pasuk is still
somewhat unclear. There is another
problem. What does the term torah
mean? The term torah is used
occasionally in the Chumash to refer to the entire corpus of law contained in
the Chumash. However, this not the
usual manner in which the term is used.
Generally, the term refers to a set of detailed laws regulating a specific
process. For example, the Chumash
introduces the laws regulating the offering of the Mincha sacrifice with the
phrase “this is the torah of the Mincha offering.”[5] In fact when the term is used to refer to
the entire corpus of law contained in the Chumash it is likely that the term is
being employed in a similar manner. The
term Torah – used in this context – refers to the entire system of detailed
laws regulating the various elements of our personal and national lives.
So, what does the term torah mean in our pasuk? It seems unlikely that the term refers to
the entire corpus of law. If that were
the reference, then pasuk would mean this is the decree of the entire Torah –
implying that there is only this one single decree in the entire system of law
outlined in the Chumash. However, there
are many decrees included in the Chumash!
Therefore, Rashbam rejects this explanation of the term torah in our
passage. He suggests that the term torah
refers to the detailed laws presented latter in the parasha concerning the
transmission on tumah – spiritual defilement – by a dead body.[6] According to Rashbam it seems that the
meaning of our passage is that there is an element within the laws of tumah and
taharah – spiritual defilement and purification – that must be regarded as a
decree. This element is the mitzvah
regarding the Parah Adumah – the red heifer.
This raises an obvious question. Why is the mitzvah of Parah Adumah singled
out from the laws regulating tumah and taharah and referred to as a decree? This seems to be the question that prompts
Rashi’s comments.
Before we can consider Rashi’s response, we must
consider a preliminary issue. As
explained above, the term chok has three alternative meanings. The term often communicates the permanence
of a mitzvah. Sometimes the term refers
to a portion or right awarded by an authority.
In other instances – as in our passage – it means “decree.” It is unlikely that the Torah would use one
term in three completely different ways.
Is there some common denominator between these three usages of the term chok? It seems that the term chok always makes
reference to a law that rests on authority.
A law is permanent because it comes from Hashem. A portion or right that is awarded by
authority derives its significance through the sponsorship of the authority
that bestows the right or portion. A
decree is – by definition – a law that is based on the authority of the body of
king that establishes the decree.
This gives more meaning to our passage. The pasuk is communicating that the mitzvah
of Parah Adumah – in some sense – is to be understood as resting on and
dependant upon the law-giver. In this
case the law-giver is Hashem. In other
words, in describing this mitzvah as a decree, the Chumash is communicating
that appreciation of the mitzvah of Parah Adumah requires that we recognize the
authority – Hashem – who has decreed it.
What special characteristic of the mitzvah of Parah Adumah demands this
recognition?
Finally, we are ready for Rashi’s comments. Rashi explains that the Satan and the
nations of the world taunt the Jewish people regarding this commandment. They ask, “What kind of mitzvah is this and
what is its reason?” Therefore the
Chumash tells us that is a decree from Hashem.
We are not permitted to cast suspicion upon it.[7]
It’s clear from Rashi’s comments that there is some
odd element in the mitzvah of Parah Adumah that is destined to evoke
ridicule. What is this element? Many commentaries suggest that this ridicule
would focus on a specific odd law regarding the Parah. As we have explained, the ashes of this Parah
are used in the purification process from severe forms of tumah. However, in their preparation the ashes
actually transmit tumah. In other
words, one who comes into contact with and handles the ashes during their
preparation is himself defiled. So,
these ashes which are a source of defilement are somehow able to restore
purity![8]
However, this does not seem to be the issue that
concerned Rashi. Rashi bases his comments
on a text from the Talmud. In his
commentary on that text, Rashi explains more fully the difficulty in
understanding the mitzvah of Parah Adumah.
He explains that Parah Adumah is one of the commandments in the Torah
for which there is no apparent explanation or apparent benefit. He explains that this characteristic evokes
the criticism of the he Satan and the nations of the world. They argue that the Torah cannot possibly be
true! How can the Torah be true if it
commands us to perform mitzvot that have no apparent benefit? To this criticism the Chumash responds that
these mitzvot are decrees from Hashem and rest upon his authority. [9]
Let us now summarize Rashi’s comments. The Torah alerts us that the mitzvah of Parah
Adumah is a decree. Rashi explains that
this alert is important because this mitzvah is one of a group that have no
apparent rational or purpose. This
characteristic will expose these commandments to criticism and ridicule. The Satan and the nations of the world will
challenge the truth of a system of law that includes commandments that have no
apparent purpose. We are to respond
that these commandments are decrees from Hashem and therefore, rest on His
authority.
Frankly, it seems unlikely that the wily Satan and
hostile nations of the world will be much impressed by this argument. These critics obviously do not accept the
authenticity of the revelation at Sinai.
Yet, we are advised to respond to their disparagement with the reminder
that the mitzvot are Hashem’s decrees!
Again, Rashi’s comments on the Talmud provide a
clearer understanding of his intention.
Rashi explains that the term “Satan” is a reference to the yetzer harah
– our own internal evil inclination.[10] In other words, Rashi is describing an
internal dialogue. The response that
Rashi and the Talmud are suggesting is not intended for the person the scoffs
at revelation. Instead, it is designed
to respond to our own internal doubts.
When others criticize mitzvot like Parah Adumah that have no apparent
reason or when we ourselves are mislead by our own internal desires, we are to
remind ourselves that these seemingly arbitrary commandments are decrees from
Hashem and rest on His authority.
Still, Rashi’s comments are difficult to fully
understand. Rashi is describing an
internal debate that may take place within us.
But the nature of this debate remains unclear. If a person is experiencing doubts about the truth of the Torah,
how will one be rescued with a reminder that these troubling mitzvot are
Hashem’s decrees?
Klee Yakar provides an important insight into this
issue. After quoting Rashi’s comments,
he explains that the criticism described by Rashi is not at all
unreasonable. He explains that we have
every reason to expect the mitzvot to make sense. The Chumash tells us that if we observe the commandments the
nations of the world will admire us.
They will praise is as a wise and understanding nation.[11],[12] This insights suggests a clearer
understanding of the internal dialogue described by Rashi. Klee Yakar suggests that we are to conduct
ourselves in a way that demonstrates the deep wisdom of the Torah. However, this very obligation evokes a
problem. How are we to conduct ourselves
as intelligent and wise individuals if we are required to observe commandments
that have no obvious meaning? It is
natural to be troubled by this paradox.
In fact, to not be concerned with this issue, suggests that one is not
committed to the obligation to conduct one’s affairs intelligently. It is inevitable that a person who takes
this obligation seriously will experience a deep level of confusion. How do we respond to this confusion?
Now, let us reconsider the response discussed by
Rashi. There are two important marks of
intelligence. First, it is incumbent
upon us to try to understand and appreciate the wisdom of the mitzvot. We cannot regard ourselves as wise,
intelligent individuals if we close our minds to contemplation. But there is a second element of wisdom. We must have humility. True wisdom should generate a sense of
humility. Humility demands that we
recognize the limits of our own insight.
A humble person recognizes that there are some mysteries that he cannot
resolve. Just as there are elements of
the created universe that defy human understanding, it is reasonable to assume
that there may be elements of the revealed law that are not completely within
human grasp. Therefore, by recognizing
the source of the Torah we can resolve our confusion.
[1] Sefer Shemot 12:14.
[2] Sefer Beresheit 47:22.
[3] Sefer VaYikra 10:13.
[4] Sefer BeMidbar 9:12
[5] Sefer VaYikra 6:7
[6] Rabbaynu Shemuel ben Meir (Rashbam) Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 19:2.
[7] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 19:2.
[8] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 9:2.
[9] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on the Talmud, Mesechet Yoma 67b.
[10] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on the Talmud, Mesechet Yoma 67b.
[11] Sefer Devarim 4:6
[12]
Rabbaynu Shlomo
Ephraim Lontshitz, Commentary Klee Yakar
on Sefer BeMidbar 19:2.