“This is the
law of the Torah that Hashem commanded saying:
Speak to Bnai Yisrael. And they
should take for you a perfectly red cow that has no blemish and has never had a
yoke placed upon it.”
(BeMidbar 19:2)
Parshat
Chukat discusses the laws of the Parah
Adumah – the Red Cow. This cow is
burned. Its ashes are used in the
process of purifying a person that has become defiled through contact with a
dead body.
The
cow that is burned and used in this purification process must meet specific
requirements. Our pasuk describes these three basic requirements. The cow must be completely red. It must be unblemished. The cow must never have had a yoke placed
upon it.
The
need for the cow to be unblemished is not surprising. This is a requirement of animals used for sacrifice. It is reasonable for this requirement to be
applied to the Parah Adumah. However, the restriction against using a cow
that has born a yoke is unusual. This
restriction does not generally apply to sacrifices. What is the reason for this restriction?
There
is one instance of a similar restriction.
This is in regard to the Eglah
Arufah. This calf is slaughtered in
the process of atonement for an unsolved murder. The Torah requires the calf has not been used for labor and has
not drawn a load with a yoke.[1]
These
restrictions are similar. Both the Parah Adumah and the Eglah Arufah are disqualified through
association with labor. However, the
restrictions are not identical. A cow
is disqualified from serving as Parah
Adumah through placing a yoke upon it.
It is not necessary for the cow to do any actual labor.[2] In contrast, the mere placement of the yoke
on a calf does not disqualify it from serving as an Eglah Arufah. The calf is
only disqualified if it has actually drawn a load.[3] This raises an additional question. Why is this unique restriction formulated
differently in these two instances? Why
does the mere placement of the yoke upon the Parah Adumah disqualify the animal? Why is the Eglah Arufah
only disqualified through drawing a burden with the yoke?
Gershonides
deals with our first question. Why is
an animal associated with labor disqualified from use as a Parah Adumah and an Eglah Arufah? He explains the basic concept underlying
this restriction. There is a
fundamental distinction between animals used for sacrifice and the animals
chosen for Parah Adumah and Eglah Arufah. An animal chosen for a sacrifice can have a previous identity or
function. An animal that has been
designated for work or used for labor can become a sacrifice. Only after the animal is chosen for
sacrifice, does it receive a designation.
After the animal is designated to be a sacrifice, it can no longer be used
for labor. Using the animal for labor
contradicts its designation as a sacrifice.
In short, in the case of a sacrificial animal a previous identity does
not disqualify the animal from receiving a new designation. It can still be designated as a sacrifice.
The
cow chosen for the Parah Adumah
cannot have been previously associated with labor. The use of the cow as a Parah
Adumah must be the first and only identity of the cow. The placement of a yoke upon the cow confers
an identity. With the placement of the
yoke upon the cow, it is associated with labor. This is an identity in the animal. This disqualifies the animal.
The identity of Parah Adumah
or Eglah Arufah must be the first and
only identity in the animal.
Gershonides expresses the concept in an interesting manner. It must be as if the animal was created to
serve as a Parah Adumah or Eglah Arufah. [4]
We
will now turn to our second question.
Why is the restriction of the Eglah
Arufah formulated differently than the restriction upon the Parah Adumah? Why does the mere placement of the yoke upon a cow disqualify it
from use as a Parah Adumah? Why is a calf disqualified from serving as
an Eglah Arufah only after it has
pulled a load?
Gershonides
contends that the restrictions upon the Parah
Adumah and the Eglah Arufah share
the same underlying concept.[5] The animal chosen for either of these
functions must be free of a previous identity.
He explains that the difference in the restrictions lies in the
stringency with which this requirement is applied. In the case of the Eglah
Arufah, the animal becomes associated with labor through the performance of
labor. Therefore, only through the
actual performance of labor is the calf disqualified. In contrast, the Parah
Adumah is associated with labor through designation. Placement of the yoke upon the cow
designates it for use in labor. This
designation alone creates an association.
The cow can no longer be used as a Parah
Adumah.
In
short, the two formulations differ in the degree of association to labor that
disqualifies the animal. The
restriction in regard to Eglah Arufah
requires a higher degree of association.
Only the actual performance of labor produces this degree of
association. The restriction in regard
to the Parah Adumah requires a lower
degree of association. Even designation
of the cow for labor creates this lower degree of association and disqualifies
the cow.
[1] Sefer
Devarim 21:3.
[2] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Parah Adumah 1:7.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Rotzeach U’Shmirat Nefesh 10:3.
[4] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1998), pp. 94-95.
[5] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1998), pp. 94-95.