## Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar

###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:1)

**בני שמור אמרי ומצותי תצפון אתך, שמור מצותי וחיה ותורתי כאישון עיניך (משלי ז, א-ב)**

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
**בני שמור אמרי ומצותי תצפון אתך. מצותי וחיה ותורתי כאישון עיניך “My son, heed my words treasure my commandments within you. Keep my commandments and live; and my teachings as the apple of your eyes”**(Proverbs 7,1-2).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:2)

**שלמה**המלך ע"ה ידבר תמיד בספר משלי בשם החכמה וקרא כל המצות שבתורה שהן תרי"ג אמרים ומצות, וכן קראן דוד ע"ה אמרות, הוא שאמר (תהילים י״ב:ז׳) אמרות ה' אמרות טהורות. המצות כלן נחלקות על שלשה חלקים, מצות מקובלות, ומצות מושכלות, ומצות שאין טעמן נגלה ומבואר. מצות מקובלות הן המצות שאין האדם מוצאם בשכלו בלתי קבלה. כמצות התפילין והציצית והמילה והסכה והשופר והלולב וכיוצא בהן, והנה כלן הן מצות אלהיות והן הנקראות עדות לפי שהן עדות גמורה על האלהות ועדות גמורה על חדוש העולם, כמצות השבת והשמטה והיובל, ומזה יקרא החלק הזה בכתובים עדות (שם קיט) ואדברה בעדותיך וגו', (שם) גם עדותיך שעשועי. מצות מושכלות הן המצות שהאדם ימצאם בשכלו אלו לא נתנם התורה, כענין הגזל והאונאה והרציחה והגנבה וכיוצא בהן, ומצות הללו יקראם הכתוב משפטים. מצות שאין טעמן נגלה ומבואר הן מצות הכלאים ובשר בחלב ושעיר המשתלח ופרה אדומה ואלה יקראם הכתוב חקים. וזהו שנזכר במשנה תורה (דברים ו׳:כ׳) כי ישאלך בנך מחר לאמר מה העדות והחקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' אלהינו אתכם, ואמרת לבנך עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים ויוציאנו ה' וגו', באר הכתוב כי האלהות התחיל להתפרסם בין האומות בצאת ישראל ממצרים, ולפי שנתפרסם בשבילנו ושעשה עמנו להפליא לכך נתחייבנו לקבל מצותיו אלה שהם שלשה חלקים, עדות וחקים ומשפטים, הזכיר עדות על המצות המקובלות, והזכיר משפטים על המצות ההמושכלות, והזכיר חקים על המצות שאין טעמן נגלה בתורה. וכן אמר שלמה ע"ה בכאן בני שמור אמרי על המצות המקובלות שמור מצותי וחיה על המצות המושכלות שבהן יחיה האדם ובהן ישובי המדינות, ואמר ומצותי תצפון אתך על החקים שהם צפונים ונעלמים ואין טעמן נגלה בתורה אלא שהן חקה וגזרת המלך כענין פרה אדומה הנקרא חקה, וזהו שכתוב.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
Throughout the Book of Proverbs Solomon always speaks in the name of the attribute (or emanation) חכמה, wisdom; he refers to all the 613 commandments in the Torah as either אמרים , “words” or מצות, “commandments.” His father David before him already referred to the commandments as אמרים, as we know from Psalms 12,7: אמרות ה’ אמרות טהורות, “the Lord’s commandments are pure commandments.”
 The commandments of the Torah are subdivided into three groups. They are known as 1) מצות מקובלות, 2) מצות מושכלות, and 3) מצות שאין טעמם נגלה ומבואר 1) Commandments which are based on historical precedents; 2) commandments which appeal to our minds and which are easy to understand and appreciate. 3) Commandments the reason for which and the usefulness of which are completely outside our ability to comprehend. The first group which includes such laws as making and wearing phylacteries or putting fringes on our four-cornered garments as well as the commandment to circumcise our male babies, etc., have a common denominator in that they are associated with the history of our people and our special protection by the Almighty. When we perform any of these commandments we testify to the fact that we belong to the chosen people and that we as well as our forefathers have accepted His covenant and are loyal to it, bound by it. None of these commandments would have been invented by man as only G’d can legislate what are suitable symbolic acts to recall events in our history. This is why many of our sages also call these commandments עדות, “testimony.” They are all of Divine origin. The Torah describes the second generation of Israelites as inquiring after what they perceive to be these “testimonial laws” in Deut. 6,20. Some of these laws testify to the fact that G’d created the universe out of no tangible material, others testify to the selection of the Jewish people as His special nation; still others testify to the manner in which G’d provided for us in the desert, etc. David (Psalms 119,24) is on record as viewing even these commandments as שעשעי, “my delights.”
 The second group of commandments, even if not always in their details, are the ones which the human mind would have had to invent and legislate if the Torah had not done so; this is why they are called מושכלות, “rational” in essence. Examples are how we are to deal with the crimes of theft, robbery, murder, unfair business practices, etc., etc. The term applied to these kinds of commandments in the Torah is משפטים.
 The third group of commandments, the ones which completely baffle us, are the legislation not to mix certain seeds, wear clothes combining wool and linen, mixing of meat and milk (though they are part of the same animal), the dispatch of the scape-goat to the Azazel, and the laws involving the red heifer. The Torah’s appellation for all of these types of laws is חקים, “statutes.” This is also one of the groups of laws referred to as the subject of the inquiry by second generation Israelites (and later generations) in Deut. 6,20-21. The answer suggested by the Torah to such inquiries is prefaced with the words: “we used to be slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt who maltreated us in a cruel manner until the Lord our G’d redeemed us from there ad brought us to this land of Israel.” The Torah emphasises “the Lord our G’d did all this,” i.e. that as of that point in time the reputation of the Lord as our national G’d was greatly enhanced. It is therefore appropriate that we loyally accept all three groups of commandments. The passage in Deuteronomy we quoted refers to three groups of commandments, עדות, משפטים, חקים. In the verse quoted above from Proverbs, Solomon merely paraphrases the words of the Torah by speaking of the עדות as אמרי; he refers to the משפטים as שמור מצותי וחיה, “observe My commandments so that you may live (a civilian and secure life).” Finally, when Solomon says: ומצותי תצפון אתך, “treasure My commandments with you,” he refers to the חקים statutes, which, though not understood by you, should be treasured nonetheless. G’d in His capacity as our king has the right to legislate statutes such as the one of the red heifer without revealing His motive.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:3)

**זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה ה' לאמר דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה תמימה וגו'.** נסמכה פרשה זו לפרשת מתנות כהונה, לפי שפרה אדומה היא טהרתן של ישראל ללמדך שאף טהרתן של ישראל על ידי כהן.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
**זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה ה’ לאמור, דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה תמימה וגו’, “this is the statute of the Torah which the Lord has commanded to say: ‘tell the Children of Israel that they shall take an unblemished red cow, etc.’”** The paragraph dealing with the red heifer has been appended to the one detailing the gifts the Israelites have to give to the priests because the red heifer is the “instrument which purifies the Jewish people.” The paragraph teaches that the priests are not only the recipients of gifts from the Israelites but that they are the ones who can confer ritual purity on the Israelites.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:4
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:4)

**חקת התורה.** פירשו המפרשים לשון חק וגזרת מלך כדבר שאין טעמו נודע לבריות והן תמהין עליו, כענין פרה אדומה שהיא מטהרת את הטמאים ומטמאת את העוסקים בעבודתה. והאמת כי פרה אדומה מכלל החקים שאין טעמן נגלה ונודע, אבל עקר לשון חקה מלשון חקיקה, ירמוז לדבר החקוק ומצויר למעלה והנרמז לישראל בפרה אדומה, ולכך נקרא חלק אחד מן המצות חקים. נאמר כאן חקת התורה ונאמר בשעיר המשתלח (ויקרא ט״ז:כ״ט) והיתה לכם לחקת עולם, ובכלאים (שם יט) את חקותי תשמרו. ועוד נקראים חקים מלשון גבול, כענין שכתוב (ירמיהו ה׳:כ״ב) אשר שמתי חול גבול לים חק עולם ולא יעברנהו, (שם לא) חקות ירח וכוכבים לאור לילה, כלומר גבולי היום והלילה, וזה להורות שנעצור המחשבה מלהרהר בהם ולא נעבור גבול מפני עומק השגתם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
חקת התורה, “a statute of the Torah.” The various commentators understand the word as meaning: ‘statute; royal decree.’ In other words, a law which defies understanding by the subject to whom it is applied. People asked to obey it constantly wonder why they have to obey such a law. The details of the red heifer legislation are not only devoid of logic but appear to defy logic in that contact with that cow defiles the ritually pure while purifying the ritually impure.
 The truth is that the red heifer is one of the statutes which defies our understanding. Still, the principal meaning of the word חק is derived from the word חקיקה, something that is “indelibly engraved in a rock.” like a picture. G’d hinted to the Children of Israel that their image is indelibly engraved in the celestial regions. In other words, seeing there are no rocks to inscribe things on in the celestial regions, the word חקיקה is a simile for immutable concepts, as basic to G’d’s legislation as if their counterpart had been engraved in rock in our terrestrial universe (compare author’s comment on Leviticus 19,19). This is why a certain group of the commandments is known under the heading of חקים. It is significant that the expression חקת התורה appears in connection with our legislation here, whereas in connection with the legislation involving the scape-goat the Torah defines this as חקת עולם, whereas in connection with kilayim, the prohibition to mix species which G’d wanted to keep separate, the Torah simply writes את חקותי תשמורו, “observe My statutes.” Whenever the Torah refers to a commandment as having an aspect of חוק, this is its way of reminding us of the immutability of such a commandment.
 Another reason why the term חק is applied to certain laws is that the word means גבול, “limitation,” such as when the prophet Jeremiah 15,22 describes the sand on the beaches of the sea as the limit to the ocean’s power of expanding into the area designated as “the dry land.” The wording there is: אשר שמתי גבול לים חק עולם ולא יעברנהו, “who set the sand as a boundary for the sea as a limit for all time not to be transgressed.” Other examples of the meaning of the word חק being “boundary,” are Jeremiah 31,35: חקות ירח וכוכבים לאור לילה, “the laws of moon and stars for light by night.” In other words, sun and moon respectively serve as boundaries of day and night respectively (compare the whole verse in Jeremiah).
 The philosophical aspect of the meaning of “boundary” for the word חק in connection with this legislation is that there are limits, boundaries, to the extent to which we may employ our investigative faculties in probing its meaning. We have to discipline ourselves in acknowledging that G’d clearly did not want us to probe beyond a certain point.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:5
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:5)

**וצריך**אתה לדעת שיש הפרש בין חק לחקה, כי המצוה הנקראת חק היא הנמשכת ממדת זכור, כענין שכתוב בפסח מצרים (שמות י״ב:כ״ד) לחק לך ולבניך, כי חק הוא מכריע, וכן בספר יצירה ולשון חק מכריע בינתים. ובברכת מילה חק בשארו שם. ובתפלת יום הזכרון (תהלים פא) כי חק לישראל הוא. והמצוה הנקראת חקה נמשכת ממדת שמור, וזהו את חקותי תשמרו הנאמרת בכלאים ובאשת אח והזכיר לשון שמירה, וכן (שמות י״ג:י׳) ושמרת את החקה הזאת למועדה, וכן בכאן הזכיר זאת חקת התורה, והיתה זאת לכם לחקת עולם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
You need to appreciate that there is a difference in meaning between the word חק and the word חקה. Any commandment described as חק has its origin in the attribute זכור. [The author refers to the two aspects of Sabbath legislation described by the Torah as זכור and שמור respectively, Ed.]. The former refers to an emanation on the right side of the diagram of the emanations, whereas the latter is part of the left side of that diagram. We find in connection with the laws of Passover (Exodus 12,25) that the Torah categorises that legislation as לחק לך ולבניך, “as a statute for you and your children.” A חק is something definitive, decisive. We find the word in the benedictions recited at the circumcision, i.e. חק בשארו שם, “He set a חק (seal) on the flesh of his offspring.” In our prayers on New Year’s Day we speak of the requirement to blow the shofar on that day as being חק לישראל, (Psalms 81,5) a very definitive requirement. This point is also made in the Sefer Yetzirah 2,1 where the author writes כי חק הוא מכריע, that the word חק reconciles conflicting concepts [between the right and the left side of the emanations. Ed.].
 A commandment described as חקה, is derived from the attribute שמור. Examples are such statements as Leviticus 19,19 את חוקותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My statutes.” The statutes referred to are not to mix certain species, not to marry the wife of a brother while the brother is alive (The word שמירה is used in connection with that commandment). Here too the Torah couches the legislation in the word חקה rather than חק, similar to the wording in Leviticus 20,22 summing up the legislation involving forbidden sexual unions. [The difference between the two words used for these various legislations may perhaps be defined as the difference between positive and negative commandments. The former are described as חק, the latter as חקה. Ed.].


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:6
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:6)

**אשר צוה ה'.** היה לו לומר אשר צויתי, אבל הוא כלשון (שם כד) ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה'.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
אשר צוה ה', “which the Lord has commanded.” The Torah really should have written: “which I commanded.” However our syntax here is comparable to Exodus 24,1 where the Torah wrote: ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', instead of עלה אלי, ascend to Me.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:7
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:7)

**דבר אל בני ישראל.** ולא אמר דברו, לפי שמשה הוא העיקר.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
דבר אל בני ישראל, speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” Although the paragraph commences with G’d addressing both Moses and Aaron, He uses the singular דבר, instead of דברו when formulating what precisely it is that the Children of Israel are to be told. The reason is that even when G’d addresses Moses and Aaron simultaneously, Moses is considered the principal.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:8
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:8)

**ויקחו אליך.** טעם אליך, שיעשה כן במדבר לשעה. ואחרי כן יצוה שתהיה לבני ישראל ולגר לחקת עולם שיעשו כן לדורות, וכן (שם כז) ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך, וכמו שכתבתי שם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
ויקחו אליך, “and they shall take to you.” The reason for the additional word “to you” at this point is to teach that the commandment was of immediate importance at this time in the desert, whereas later on (verse 10) G’d gives instructions as to future applicability of this commandment. We find a similar pattern in the legislation of the oil for anointing (Exodus 27,20) as I commented there.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:9
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:9)

**פרה אדומה תמימה.** ולא תמימות קומה, שאם היתה ננסה כשרה כשאר קדשים, אלא תמימה באדמימות שאם היו בה שתי שערות שחורות או לבנות פסולה לכך היו לוקחין אותה בדמים יקרים.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
פרה אדומה תמימה, “a completely red cow without a blemish.” The word תמימה refers to the colour, not to the size or other features of the cow. If this cow had been undersized compared to other cows of similar age this would not disqualify the animal from serving the purpose described by the Torah. Two black hairs or two white hairs in its coat would disqualify the cow from being used for the procedure described here. It is not surprising therefore that the price of such a cow would be very high (compare Kidushin 31).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:10
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:10)

**וכתב**הרמב"ם ז"ל בהלכות פרה, מצות פרה אדומה שתהיה בת ארבע שנים או בת שלש, ואם היתה זקנה כשרה, ואין לוקחין עגלה ומגדלין אותה, לא מצאו פרה אלא עגלה פוסקין עליה דמים ותהיה אצל בעליה עד שתגדיל ותעשה פרה, שנאמר ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה. מותר ליקח מן העו"ג פרה אדומה ואין חוששין שמא רבעה שאין אדם מפסיד בהמתו. כל המומין הפוסלין בקדשים פוסלין בפרה אדומה, שנאמר אשר אין בה מום, בא ללמד שהמום פוסל בה כקדשים אע"פ שאינה קריבה לגבי המזבח הואיל והכתוב קראה חטאת. יתירה פרה על הקדשים שהעבודה פוסלת בה שנאמר אשר לא עלה עליה עול, ובעגלה ערופה הוא אומר (דברים כ״א:ג׳) אשר לא עובד בה אשר לא משכה בעול, מה עול האמור בעגלה ערופה עשה בה שאר עבודות כעול אף עול האמור בפרה פוסל בה שאר עבודות כעול, אלא שהעול פוסל בה בין בשעת עבודה בין שלא בשעת עבודה, ושאר עבודות אינן פוסלות אלא בשעת עבודה. כיצד קשר עליה עול אע"פ שלא חרשה בו פסולה, הכניסה לדוש אינה נפסלת עד שידוש בה, וכן כל כיוצא בזה, רכב עליה נשען עליה נתלה בזנבה עבר בה את הנהר כפל עליה את המוסרה נתן עליה טלית אפילו כסות של סדין, פסולה. אבל קשרה במוסרה אם היתה מורדת וצריכה שמירה, כשרה, ואם לא היתה צריכה שמירה פסולה, שכל שאינה צריכה שמירה משוי הוא. עשה לה סנדל שלא תחליק פרש עליה טליתו מפני הזבובין כשרה, זה הכלל כל שהוא לצרכה כשרה ולצורך אחר פסולה. נעשה בה מלאכה מאליה או שעלה עליה עול מאליו, אם מרצונו פסולה, שנאמר (דברים כ״א:ג׳) אשר לא עובד בה, ולרצונו הרי זה כמי שעבד בה. לפיכך אם שכן עליה עוף כשרה, עלה עליה זכר פסולה ואין צ"ל שהמעוברת פסולה. הכניסה לפטמה בתבואה ודשה מאליה כשרה, הכניסה כדי שתינק ותדוש פסולה שהרי עשתה לרצונו וכן כל כיוצא בזה. פרה שנולד בה פסול תפדה, וכן אם מתה תפדה מפני עורה אבל לא להאכיל בשרה לכלבים. נשחטה לשם חולין אינה מכפרת. לקחו פרה מצא אחרת נאה הימנה הרי זו תפדה אע"פ שאין בה מום. אף כהן הדיוט כשר לפרה בשרפתה שנאמר ונתתם אותה אל אלעזר הכהן, קבלת חכמים היא שזו היתה מצותה בסגן אע"פ שעדיין אהרן קיים ושאר הפרות בין בכהן גדול בין בכהן הדיוט נשרפות בארבעה בגדי כהן הדיוט. אין שורפין את הפרה אלא חוץ להר הבית שנאמר והוציא אותה אל מחוץ למחנה, חוץ להר הבית לשלש מחנות, ובהר המשחה היו שורפין אותה. ושחט אותה לפניו, זר שוחט ואלעזר רואה. אותה, שלא ישחט דבר אחר עמה ולא יתעסק במלאכה אחרת, שנאמר ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, שיהיו עיניו בה עד שתעשה אפר. ולקח אלעזר הכהן מדמה באצבעו, שלא יקבל דמה בכלי אלא שוחט בימין ומקבל הדם בשמאלו ומזה באצבעו הימנית מן הדם שבכפו השמאלית שבע פעמים, ומכוין בהזאותיו ממקומו כנגד פתח אוהל מועד, וצריך שיהא רואהו משם שנאמר והזה אל נכח פני אהל מועד. גמר מלהזות מקנח ידיו בגופה של פרה ויורד מן המערכה ומצית את האש והכהן עומד מרחוק ומשמר לה עד שיצית האור ברובה ותבקע בטנה, ואחר כך נוטל עץ ארז ואזוב אין פחות מטפח, וצמר צבוע בתולעת משקל חמש סלעים, ואומר לעומדים שם עץ ארז זה עץ ארז זה עץ ארץ זה, שני תולעת זה שני תולעת זה שני תולעת זה, שלשה פעמים על כל דבר ודבר, והם אומרים לו הן הן הן, שלשה פעמים על כל אחד ואחד. וכל כך למה לפי שמיני ארזים הן שבעה, ומיני אזוב ארבעה, והצבוע אדום יש שצובעין אותו בפואה ויש שצובעין אותו בתולעת הנקרא גראנ"א והתולעת היא הגרגרים האדומים ביותר דומין לגרעיני החרובין, והתולעת כמו יתוש יש בכל גרגיר מהם, לפיכך מודיע לכל ומגלה להן שאלו הן המינין האמורין בתורה. והאזוב האמור בתורה הוא האזוב שאוכלין בעלי בתים ומתבלין בו הקדרות, וכורך האזוב עם הארז בלשון של שני ומשליך לתוך בטנה שנאמר אל תוך שרפת הפרה. לא קודם שיצית ברובה של פרה ולא אחר שנעשית אפר. עמדה שרפתה חובטין אותה במקלות היא וכל עצי המערכה שנשרפה בהן, וכוברין הכל בכברות וכל שחור שאפשר שיכתת ויהיה אפר בין מבשרה בין מן העצים כותשין אותו עד שיעשה אפר. המים שנותנין בהן אפר הפרה אין ממלאין אותן אלא בכלי מן המעינות הנובעים ומן הנהרים המושכין, שנאמר ונתן עליו מים חיים אל כלי. ונתינת אפר פרה על המים שנתמלאו הוא הנקרא קדוש, והמים הללו משנתן בהן האפר נקראין מי חטאת והן הן שקראן הכתוב מי נדה. מעלות יתרות עשו בטהרת חטאת זה, שהאדם הטהור אפילו טבל לקדש ועמד ומשמש על גבי המזבח אינו טהור לחטאת זה, לא לשרפתה ולא למלוי המים ולא לקדשן ולא להזות עד שיטבול לשם חטאת ואחר כך יהיה טהור לחטאת, וכן הכלי אפילו מזרק שבעזרה אינו טהור לחטאת עד שיטבילהו לשם חטאת. רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא היה אוכל בטהרת הקדש כל ימיו והיתה מטפחתו כמדרס הזב לענין חטאת. וכיצד מטהרים טמאי מת במי נדה, לוקח אדם טהור שלשה קלחין של אזוב ואוגדין אגודה אחת, בכל בד ובד גבעול אחד, וטובל ראשי גבעולין במי נדה שבכלי ומתכוין ומזה על האדם או על הכלים ביום השלישי וביום השביעי אחר שהנץ החמה. וכיון שנגע כל שהוא ממי נדה בכל מקום מעור בשר של טמא עלתה לו הזאתו, אפילו נפלה ההזאה על ראש אצבעו או על ראש שפתו, אבל אם נגעה בלשונו אינה כלום, אע"פ שהלשון היא כאברים הגלוים לענין טומאה, אינה כאברים שבגלוי לענין הזאה וטבילה. עד כאן לשון הרב מספר טהרה בהלכות פרה אדומה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
Maimonides writes in Hilchot Parah Adumah that this cow was generally either three of four years old. If it happened to be older this did not disqualify her. One does not generally purchase such an animal when it is still a calf and raises it in the care of the Temple treasury. In the event the need arises for such a cow to be purchased and none is available that meets the required criteria age-wise, it is acceptable to put the money for an animal which is younger at that time in escrow and the animal remains under the care of its owners until it is old enough and only then is ownership transferred to the Temple treasury. This rule is derived from the wording: “take to you a red cow” [as opposed to a red calf, Ed.].
 It is permissible to buy such a cow from a Gentile, (idolater) and we do not worry that its owner had previously used it in mating practices which are forbidden under Torah law. The reason we do not worry about this is that no one in his right mind puts such an expensive animal at risk, seeing that if such a ritually forbidden mating had taken place the owner would forfeit all the money he had stood to gain from selling this animal to the Israelites.
 All the blemishes that normally disqualify an animal as a potential sacrificial offering also disqualify the red cow [although it is not destined for the altar. Ed.]. We derive this from the words: אשר אין בה מום, “ which is unblemished.” The Torah refers to this animal as a חטאת, “(normally translated as “sin offering”) although it is not slaughtered in sacred precincts. This cow is subject to additional restrictions not applicable to animals destined for the altar, as the Torah demands אשר לא עלה עליה עול, “which has never worn a yoke.” Other animals may have served such profane uses prior to being sanctified to became sacrificial offerings.
 We have a similar requirement in connection with the עגלה ערופה, “a heifer (calf) which will die by having its neck broken” (Compare Deut. 21,3) where the wording is אשר לא עובד בה אשר לא משכה בעול, “with which no work has been performed, which has not pulled with a yoke.” Just as in the case of the עגלה ערופה such a calf is disqualified if it has performed work for an owner even without the device known as “yoke,” so the red cow too must not have performed any chore even if it had not worn a yoke while doing so. In other words, the “yoke” disqualifies the red cow even if it had never been put to its customary use. Similarly, work performed disqualifies the animal even if it had never worn a yoke. To illustrate: if the animal was connected to a ploughshare even if it had not pulled the plough it would be disqualified; on the other hand if it had been brought to a threshing-ground without having started to thresh it would be fit to serve as a red cow. If someone had used the cow to ride on, to lean on, or had hung something on its tail, or had even covered it merely with a cloth etc., it is disqualified. If the cloth was of a protective nature, i.e. to ward off flies, it is in order. If restraints had been put on the animal because it had behaved rebelliously this does not disqualify the red cow from being used for its designated purpose. If the animal had not first demonstrated unruly behavior making restraints necessary, putting restraints on it merely as a precautionary measure is not permissible. If the cow had performed a useful task without the owner or any other person urging it to do so, it depends on whether the owner approved and meant to benefit by such work. If yes, the animal can no longer serve for its ritual purpose, if the owner did not approve or intend to make use of the result of the animal’s labor the animal is not disqualified. This is the meaning of the formula אשר לא עובד בה, “that the labor had not been performed with it by design.” Approval after the event is equated by halachah as if it had been intended already prior to the event. Therefore, if, for instance, a bird had made the animal’s back its regular seat, this does not impede the animal’s use as a red cow. If a bull had mounted the cow this does disqualify her; if she is pregnant she is also disqualified, of course. The rule governing all this is simple: if the work performed with the animal is for the good of the animal or its well-being it is all right. If its serves the owner or his agent it disqualifies the animal as a potential red cow as described in the Torah.
 If an animal which had been designated as a red cow dies before it could be used, or it developed some blemish which prevents it from being used as intended, it may be redeemed. As a result its hide may be used for profane purposes though its meat may not be eaten, or in the case of death being due to natural causes rather than ritual slaughter, its meat must not be fed to the dogs as this would be degrading (even after it has been redeemed for money to the Temple treasury).
 If, when the red cow was slaughtered, it was slaughtered for profane purposes instead of with a view to the remains being burned as ashes of the red cow, it will not have the effect of achieving atonement for people being sprinkled with its ash and the water from a living well. If the Temple treasury had bought a red cow and subsequently found an animal of better appearance, the original one may be redeemed and the proceeds applied to the purchase of the second animal even though the original red cow had not developed any blemish disqualifying it. 
 An ordinary priest is fully qualified to perform the procedure with the red cow. This is derived from verse 3: “and you shall hand it to Eleazar the Priest.” As a general rule the procedure was performed by the High Priest’s substitute, second in command. At the time this legislation was revealed Aaron was still alive. Therefore, when the Torah writes that the procedure is to be performed by his son Eleazar who was his successor, it is clear that not only the High Priest could perform this procedure. The priest performing this procedure is to wear the four priestly garments which an ordinary priest wears when performing sacrificial service within the confines of the Temple and its courtyard.
 The flesh of the cow must not be burned on the sacred grounds of the Temple Mount as we know from verse 3: והוציא אותה אל מחוץ למחנה, “he is to take it outside the camp.” This means outside both the camp of the priests, the Levites, and the Israelites. Usually, the red cow was slaughtered on the Mount of Olives. [There were only a total of 9 such cows during the entire 830 years that the two Temples stood. Ed.].
 The words: ושחט אותה לפניו, “he shall slaughter it in his presence,” mean that even a non-priest could perform the slaughtering provided the priest stood beside him and watched his every action. Sifri 123 and Yuma 42 state that indeed a lay Israelite slaughtered the cow while Eleazar was watching. Sifri adds that only this animal could be slaughtered at that time. The slaughterer was not allowed to slaughter another animal immediately before or after. The slaughterer must not be involved at that time in any other chore. We derive this from verse 5: ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, “he is to burn the cow in front of his eyes,” i.e. he must not take his eyes off it during the entire procedure until it has become ash. The words in verse 4: “and Eleazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger,” mean that as opposed to sacrificial animals whose blood is sprinkled on the altar, no special vessel was designated for the blood to be put into prior to its being sprinkled on the altar, or in this instance in the direction of the Temple (or Tabernacle). The priest must watch what he is doing while sprinkling as the Torah uses the words: “in the direction of.” The slaughtering is done with the right hand whereas the blood is “caught” with the left and then sprinkled with the fingers of the right hand.
 After each of the seven sprinklings the priest wipes his hand on the body of the cow as residue of the blood must not be used again; at the conclusion of the sprinkling he descends from the woodpile upon which the animal’s body is lying and lights the fire. The priest stands some distance away watching until the fire has enveloped most of the cow’s body and its belly has split open. After that the priest takes the cedar-wood and the hyssop, not shorter than one handbreadth, and some wool dyed red (crimson) weighing five selaim and he says to the people standing around him: “this is the cedar-wood” (prescribed by the Torah) three times. After that he points to the hyssop, again saying three times: “this is the hyssop.” Those around him confirm having heard what the priest said by saying הן, “yes,” in response to each of the priest’s statements. Why was all this elaborate ritual necessary? There are seven different varieties of cedars; there are four varieties of hyssop; different artisans use different dyes to achieve the color called תולעת שני, “crimson;” therefore the priest wanted to make sure that all the people around him had confirmed that what he had done was the correct procedure by consensus. According to Maimonides the color crimson can be obtained from the seeds of a plant known as puah, closely resembling the seeds of the carobs, etc.; the priest wanted confirmation that the color of the wool he used corresponded to what the Torah demanded.
 The kind of hyssop described by the Torah is the kind eaten by ordinary householders and used to provide flavouring for cooked dishes. The hyssop is sandwiched together with the cedar-wood inside the crimson coloured wool and the priest throws it inside the belly of the cow after it has split open. This is the meaning of the words in verse 6: “into the burnt part of the cow.” He must not add this to the burning cow until the fire has taken hold of most of the animal, neither must he delay this part of the procedure until after the cow has turned to ash.
 When the burning has been completed one hits the remains with sticks together with all the wood from the woodpile upon which the cow was burned. After that the whole remains are sieved and anything black (not yet ash) which one comes across whether remains of wood or animal tissue, is beaten so much that it is reduced to ash.
 The water into which the ash of the red cow is poured must have been filled into a vessel directly from a spring or well of water as the Torah wrote in verse 17: “they shall put it on (the ash) spring water in a vessel.” The “pouring” of the ash into the vessel filled with water from a spring or river is what is described as “holy,” and as soon as the ash is added this mixture of water and ash is described by the Talmud as מי חטאת, (water with the capacity to bring about atonement or purification or both). The Torah (verse 13) describes this mix of water and ash from the red cow as מי נדה, “waters of sprinkling.”
 The sages imposed additional strictures in connection with who is allowed to perform these procedures. Even a person (priest) who has immersed himself in a ritual bath so that he is ritually pure enough to perform service on the altar is not automatically pure enough to perform the procedures outlined in our chapter. He is neither qualified to burn the cow nor to fill the vessel containing the water which will be mixed with the ash and used in sprinkling on the ritually impure person to be purified. Unless the immersion in a ritual bath was for the express purpose of qualifying for the tasks associated with the procedures of the red cow such immersion is not sufficient ritual preparation.
 The sages imposed similarly harsh conditions concerning the vessel fit to contain this mixture of spring-water and the ash from the red cow. For example, even the basins in the courtyard of the Temple which were used to catch the blood from sacrificial animals after these were slaughtered in preparation of their blood being sprinkled on the altar, was not considered as of a high enough degree of sanctity to serve for holding the water-ash mixture unless such a basin had previously been immersed for this express purpose.
 Maimonides relates in Hilchot Parah Adumah 13,2 that the kerchief of a man of the piety of Yochanan ben Gudgodah who maintained a personal level of ritual purity which would have enabled him to consume sacrificial meat all his life, was considered as if suffering from a level of ritual impurity known as tumat medress of someone suffering from involuntary seminal emissions, when compared to the degree of ritual purity required to perform the procedures of the red cow. 
 What were the details of purifying people suffering from contamination through contact with the dead by using these waters known as מי נדה? A ritually pure person takes three stalks of the hyssop plant ties them together each little branch wound with a small stalk. He proceeds to dip the heads of the small stalks in the מי נדה of the vessel containing same. While doing so he concentrates on his intention to use the water-ash mixture to sprinkle it on the person to be purified. This procedure occurs on the third and the seventh day of the seven days of purification after sunrise; the mixture of ash and water is sprinkled on the exposed part of the body of the person concerned. It does not matter how little of it hits the skin. If it only hits the tongue this does not help as the tongue is not considered an external part of the body for the purpose of this procedure. If vessels other than earthenware vessels have become contaminated through contact with the dead, the mixture is sprinkled on those vessels. They are purified without any waiting period afterwards. Thus far excerpts from Maimonides on the subject.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:11
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:11)

**וע"ד**המדרש והוא כתוב בפירוש רש"י ז"ל, ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה, ויקחו אליך משלהם, כשם שהם נשתתפו בעון העגל ופרקו נזמי הזהב כדכתיב (שמות ל״ב:ג׳) ויתפרקו כל העם את נזמי הזהב, כך ישתתפו לכפרה ויביאו משלהם. פרה, משל לבן שפחה שטנף פלטרין של מלך, אמר תבא האם ותקנח צואת בנה, כך תבא פרה ותכפר על מעשה העגל. אדומה, על שם שהחטא קרוי אדום, שנאמר (ישעיהו א׳:י״ח) אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג ילבינו. תמימה, על שהיו ישראל תמימים ונעשו בו בעלי מומין תבא זו ותכפר עליהם ויחזרו לתמימות. לא עלה עליה עול, כשם שפרקו מעליהם עול מלכות שמים. אל אלעזר הכהן, כשם שנקהלו על אהרן הכהן לעשות העגל, ולפי שאהרן עשה העגל לא נתנה לו עבודה זו שאין קטיגור נעשה סניגור. ושרף את הפרה, כשם שנשרף העגל. עץ ארץ ואזוב ושני תולעת, שלש מינים כנגד שלשת אלפים שנפלו בעגל, וארז הוא הגבוה מכל האילנות, ואזוב נמוך מכולן, סימן שהגבוה שנתגאה וחטא ישפיל עצמו כאזוב ותולעת ויתכפר לו. למשמרת, כשם שפשע העגל שמור למשמרת לכל הדורות לפורענות שאין לך פקידה שאין בה מפקידת העגל, שנאמר (שמות ל״ב:ל״ד) וביום פקדי ופקדתי עליהם חטאתם, כך זה היה שמור. וכשם שהעגל טימא כל העוסקין בו, שעבודה זרה מטמאה דכתיב (תהילים ק״ו:כ״ח) ויצמדו לבעל פעור ויאכלו זבחי מתים, וכתיב (ישעיהו ל׳:כ״ב) תזרם כמו דוה צא תאמר לו, כך פרה מטמאה כל העוסקים בה. וכשם שנטהרו באפרו שנאמר (שמות ל״ב:כ׳) ויטחן עד אשר דק ויזר על פני המים, כך ולקחו לטמא מעפר שרפת החטאת ונתן עליו מים חיים אל כלי.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
A Midrashic approach as presented by Rashi: Concerning the words: “they shall take to you a red cow.” The words: “to you” mean that the people have to pay for this red cow. Just as when the people had divested themselves of their golden jewelry in order to enable Aaron to make the golden calf (Exodus 32,3), they now have to pay for the instruments which will secure them purification and forgiveness for the ritual contamination they had caused themselves thereby. The matter is best illustrated by a parable. The son of the king’s maidservant had dirtied the palace. Thereupon the king ordered the maid to clean up the filth her son had left lying about. Similarly, the red cow is to atone for the whole episode of the golden calf. The reason that the cow is to be red is understood by the Midrash as natural, seeing that sins are generally associated with the colour red, i.e. blood guilt. We know this from Isaiah 1,18: “if your sins are crimson, they will become white as snow (after expiation).”
 The word תמימה, unblemished, is understood by the Midrash as a reference to the unblemished state of the Jewish nation prior to the sin of the golden calf. Due to their participation in that sin in varying degrees they had all became spiritually blemished. The function of the red cow and the procedure of sprinkling the Israelites with its ash and holy water would remove these blemishes. The words: “which has not borne a yoke,” are understood by the Midrash as an allusion to the yoke of the Torah which the Israelites had shaken off by their participation in the sin of the golden calf. They had rejected the yoke of accepting G’d as king. The words: “to Eleazar the priest,” are understood as an oblique reference to Aaron’s share in that sin. The red cow ritual could not be performed by Aaron as the participant in the guilt cannot reverse himself to act as advocate for the guilty. [Aaron could, of course, perform the ritual of future red cows if needed. Ed.] The words: “he shall burn the cow” are an allusion to the golden calf which Moses had burned immediately after his return from the mountain (Exodus 32,20).
 The words: “cedar-wood, hyssop, and crimson-red wool,” are understood by the Midrash as an allusion to the 3,000 active participants in the worship of the golden calf whom the Levites had executed. The cedar is the tallest of the trees, whereas hyssop is the smallest. It symbolizes that the tall become haughty, sin as a result, and in the end wind up as the lowest, the most insignificant. The worm, תולעת, (source of the red color crimson) also symbolizes the human being after he has become guilty.
 The word למשמרת, “as a safekeeping,” (verse 9) is a reminder that the sin of the golden calf will never be forgotten as every time the Israelites become guilty of a sin and punishment, some of the unexpiated guilt of the golden calf episode will be added to their punishment throughout the generations. This is based on Exodus 32,34: “and on the day when I make an accounting, I shall bring their sin to account against them.” In this way the sin will be remembered for all times.
 The golden calf had brought defilement and ritual impurity on all who had any dealings with it, (Psalms 106,28) “they attached themselves to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices offered to the dead.” [The reference to the “dead” is to compare the impurity conferred by idolatry to that conferred by contact or association with the dead. Ed.]. We also have a verse in Isaiah 30,22 comparing idolatry to associating with a menstruous woman “You will cast them away like a menstruous woman. ‘Out! you will call to them’” The red cow causes similar defilement to all who busy themselves with it. Just as the purification of the Israelites from that sin at the time came about by their being sprinkled with the ash of the golden calf and water (Exodus 32,20), so the red cow procedure will parallel what Moses had done at the time in order to rehabilitate the Israelites who had become defiled.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:12
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:12)

**ובמדרש**פסיקתא פרה אדומה תמימה, פרה זו מצרים שנאמר (ירמיהו מ״ו:כ׳) עגלה יפה פיה מצרים, אדומה זו בבל שנאמר (דניאל ב׳:ל״ח) אנת הוא רישא די דהבא, תמימה זו מדי דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא מלכי מדי תמימים היו, אין להקב"ה עליהם אלא עבודה זרה שקבלו מאבותיהם בלבד, אשר אין בה מום זו יון. אלכסנדרוס מוקדון כד חזי לשמעון הצדיק קאי על רגלוהי, אמר בריך אלהיה דשמעון הצדיק, אמרו ליה בני פלטין דידיה מקמי יהודאי את קאים, אמר להו כד אנא נחית לקרבא דמות דיוקניה אנא חמא ונצח. אשר לא עלה עליה עול זו מלכות אדום שלא קבלה עולו של הקב"ה אבל היא מגדפת ומחרפת, שנאמר (תהילים ע״ג:כ״ה) מי לי בשמים וגו'. ונתתם אותה אל אלעזר הכהן והוציא אותה וגו' שהוא עתיד לדחוף את שר שלהם ממחיצתו, ושחט אותה לפניו (ישעיהו ל״ד:ו׳) כי זבח לה' בבצרה וטבח גדול וגו'. אמר רבי כרם שלה גדול בארץ אדום. ושרף את הפרה לעיניו הדא הוא דכתיב (דניאל ז׳:י״א) ויהיבת ליקידת אשא, את עורה ואת בשרה ואת דמה על פרשה ישרוף, היא ודוסטיא ואסטרטליטיה שנאמר (יחזקאל כ״ז:כ״ז) הוניך ועזבוניך מערבך מלחיך וחובליך מחזיקי בדקך ועורבי מערבך, עד כאן.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
Midrash Pessikta d’Rav Kahana (volume I page 75 edition by Dov Mandelbaum) comments as follows: The word פרה, cow, is a reference to Egypt, compare Jeremiah 46,20: “Egypt is a handsome heifer.” The word אדומה, red, is a reference to Babylon, compare Daniel 2,38: “you are the head of gold (red).” The word תמימה, unblemished, is a reference to the kingdom of the Medes as we know from Rabbi Chiyah bar Aba who described the kings of that kingdom as תמימים, unblemished. The only complaint G’d had against these kings was that they practiced idolatry, a tradition they had carried on from their forefathers. The words: “which does not have a blemish,” refer to Alexander the great. When Alexander came face to face with the High Priest Shimon Hatzadik he got off his horse and stood at attention in greeting him. He said: “blessed be the G’d of Shimon Hatzadik.” His adjutants asked him why he showed such deference to a mere Jew? He explained to them that before every victorious battle the image of this man had appeared to him. The words: "“which has not worn a yoke,” refer to the kingdom of Edom (Rome). This kingdom completely rejected obeisance to G’d even blaspheming Him, as we know from Psalms 73,25: “Whom else have I in heaven? And having you I want no one else on earth.” [This Midrash attributes these blasphemous words quoted by the psalmist to the kingdom of Edom. Ed.]. The words: “and you shall give her to Eleazar the priest and he will take it outside the camp, etc.,” are an allusion to the future when the protective angel of that kingdom will be expelled from the celestial regions. G’d will slaughter this angel representing Edom. We know this from Isaiah 34,6: “for the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom.” Rabbi Berechyah commented on that verse and on our verse (5) “he shall burn the cow in front of his eyes,” that this corresponds to Daniel 7,11: “I watched till the beast was slain and its body destroyed, and consigned to the fire’s burning.” The words: “its skin, its flesh and its blood with its dung shall he burn,” are an allusion to what we read in Ezekiel 27,27: “your wealth, your wares, your merchandise, your sailors and your pilots, the men who made your repairs those who carried on your traffic, and all the fighting men within you, all the multitude within you, shall go down into the depths of the sea on the day of your downfall.” Thus far Midrash Pessikta d’Rav Kahana.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:13
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:13)

**ובמדרש**תנחומא ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה, אמר הקב"ה למשה, אליך פרה, לך אני מגלה טעם פרה אבל לאחרים חקה, דאמר רב הונא כתיב (תהילים ע״ה:ג׳) כי אקח מועד אני מישרים אשפוט, וכתיב (זכריה י״ד:ו׳) והיה ביום ההוא לא יהיה אור יקרות וקפאון, דברים המכוסין מכם בעוה"ז עתידין להיות צפויין לכם לעוה"ב כהדין סמיא דצפי, שנאמר (ישעיהו מ״ב:ט״ז) והולכתי עורים בדרך לא ידעו בנתיבות לא ידעו אדריכם וגו' אלה הדברים עשיתים ולא עזבתים, אעשם לא נאמר אלא עשיתים שכבר עשיתים לרבי עקיבא וחבריו. דבר אחר דברים שלא נגלו למשה נגלו לר' עקיבא וחבריו, (איוב כ״ח:י׳) וכל יקר ראתה עינו, זה ר' עקיבא. אמר שלמה (קהלת ז׳:כ״ג) כל זה נסיתי בחכמה אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני, אמרתי אחכמה זה שכתוב (מלכים א ה׳:י׳) ויתן אלהים חכמה לשלמה, וכתיב (שם) ותרב חכמת שלמה מחכמת כל בני קדם ומכל חכמת מצרים, ומה היתה חכמתן של בני קדם, שיודעים במזלות וערומים בחכמת הטיאר, הוא עוף שדרשו עליו (קהלת י׳:כ׳) כי עוף השמים יוליך את הקול. אמר רשב"ג בשלשה דברים אוהב אני את בני מזרח, שאין נושקין בפה אלא ביד, וכשחותכין הבשר אין חותכין אלא בסכין, וכשנוטלין עצה אין נוטלין אלא בשדה, שנאמר (בראשית ל״א:ד׳) וישלח יעקב ויקרא לרחל וללאה השדה אל צאנו. ומה היתה חכמתן של מצרים, את מוצא כשבקש שלמה לבנות בהמ"ק שלח אצל פרעה נכה אמר לו שלח לי אומנים בשכרן שאני מבקש לבנות בהמ"ק, מה עשה כנס כל אצטרולוגין שלו צפו וראו בני אדם שעתידין למות באותה שנה ושלחם לו, כשבאו אצל שלמה צפה ברוה"ק שהם מתים באותה שנה נתן להם תכריכיהן ושלחם אצלו ואמר לו לא היה לך תכריכין לקבור מתיך, הרי לך הם ותכריכיהן. ויחכם מכל האדם, מאדם הראשון. ומה היתה חכמתו של אדם הראשון, את מוצא שבשעה שבקש הקב"ה לברוא את האדם נמלך במלאכי השרת ואמר (שם א) נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו אמרו לפניו (תהילים ח׳:ה׳) מה אנוש כי תזכרנו, אמר להם אדם שאני רוצה לברוא חכמתו מרובה משלכם, מה עשה כנס כל בהמה חיה ועוף והעבירן לפניהם אמר להם מה שמותן של אלו, לא ידעו, כיון שברא אדם העבירן לפניו, אמר לו מה שמותן של אלו, אמר לזה נאה לקרותו ארי ולזה שור ולזה סוס ולה חמור ולזה גמל, שנאמר (שם ב) ויקרא האדם שמות לכל הבהמות. והנה הם שמות מושכלות שהשכיל בחכמת האותיות לקרוא השמות כפי טבעי הבריות בגבורה וקלות ואכזריות ותמות, וכבר הזכרתי זה בסדר בראשית. אמר לו ואתה מה שמך, אמר לפניו, אדם, שנבראתי מן האדמה, אמר לו הקב"ה ואני מה שמי, אמר לו ה', אמר לו למה, אמר לפניו שאתה אדון כל הבריות, דכתיב (ישעיהו מ״ב:ח׳) אני ה' הוא שמי, שקרא לי אדם הראשון, הוא שמי שהתניתי ביני לבין בריותי. (מלכים ה) מאיתן האזרחי, זה אברהם, שנאמר (תהלים פט) משכיל לאיתן האזרחי, והימן זה משה שנאמר (במדבר י״ב:ז׳) בכל ביתי נאמן הוא. וכלכל, זה יוסף, שנאמר (בראשית מ״ז:י״ב) ויכלכל יוסף, אמרו המצריים כלום מלך עלינו עבד זה אלא בחכמתו, מה עשו הביאו שבעים פתקין וכתבו בהם שבעים לשון והניחום לפניו, וקרא כל אחד ואחד בלשונו, ולא עוד אלא שהיה מדבר בלשון הקדש שלא היו הם מבינים, שנאמר (תהלים פא) עדות ביהוסף שמו וגו'. ודרדע, זה דור המדבר שהיו כלן בני דעה. בני מחול, בנים שמחלה להם שכינה עון העגל. (מלכים א ה׳:י״ב) וידבר שלשת אלפים משל ויהי שירו חמשה ואלף, אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני חזרנו על כל המקראות ולא מצינו שנתנבא שלמה אלא קרוב לשמונה מאות פסוקים, אלא מלמד שכל פסוק ופסוק שאמר הביא עליו כך וכך טעמים כך וכך משלים. וידבר על העצים, אמר מפני מה מצורע נטהר בגבוה שבגבוהים ובנמוך שבנמוכים, בעץ ארז ואזוב, על ידי שהגביה עצמו כארז לקה בצרעת, וכיון שהשפיל עצמו כאזוב נתרפא ונטהר באזוב. וידבר על הבהמה ועל העוף, אמר מפני מה בהמה נתרת בשני סימנין ועוף בסימן אחד, על שהבהמה נבראת מן היבשה שנאמר (בראשית א׳:כ״ד) תוצא הארץ נפש חיה למינה בהמה ורמש וחיתו ארץ, ועוף נברא מן המים שנאמר ישרצו המים וגו', או מן הרקק נברא. ועל הרמש, אמר מפני מה שמונה שרצים שבתורה הצדן והחובל בהן בשבת חייב ושאר שרצים פטור, מפני שיש להן עורות. ועל הדגים, שאינן טעונין שחיטה, שנאמר (במדבר י״א:כ״ב) הצאן ובקר ישחט להם אם את כל דגי הים יאסף להם, הנך בשחיטה והנך באסיפה. אמר שלמה ע"ה בכל אלה עמדתי ובפרה אדומה לא עמדתי, אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני, והי"א רחוק"ה בגימטריא פר"ה אדומ"ה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
Tanchuma on Chukat 8 comments as follows on the words: “they shall take a red cow to you.” The words “a cow to you,” mean that I, G’d, will reveal the meaning of this legislation to you, but for everyone else it will remain in the realm of a חוקה, a statute, beyond their understanding. This interpretation is based on an illuminating comment by Rav Huna on two verses (Psalms 75,3 and Zecharyah 14,6). In the former verse the psalmist writes: At the time I choose I will give judgment equitably.” [At that time the justice of My ways will become revealed to everyone, seeing G’d did not mean to imply that up until that time His justice had been inequitable. Ed.]. In the other verse the prophet quotes G’d as saying: “in that day there shall be neither sunlight nor cold moonlight, but there shall be a continuous day -only the Lord knows when- of neither day or night, and there shall be light at eventide.” The meaning of the verse is that there will remain matters which while they are not revealed to you in this world will be revealed to you in that future, such as the blind man who gains his sight, of whom Isaiah 42,16 writes: “I will guide the blind by a road they did not know, and I will make them walk by paths they never knew I will turn darkness before them to light.....these are the things which I have done and I will not abandon them.” The crucial word in that verse is the word עשיתים, instead of אעשה אותם, i.e. “I have done them,” instead of “I am going to do them” (as we would have expected). This means (according to Tanchuma) that what is described here as a view of the future G’d has already shown to Rabbi Akiva and his companions (who descended into the Pardess).
 A different approach to the same verse: Even matters which have not been revealed to Moses will be revealed to Rabbi Akiva. This is based on Job 28,10: “his eyes behold every precious thing.” These words which describe someone as seeing “every precious thing” refer to Rabbi Akiva. Solomon said in Kohelet 7,23: “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought to myself that I would become wise, but it is beyond me.” The words: “I would become wise,” are a reference to the testimony in Kings I 5,9: “the Lord had given wisdom to Solomon and discernment in great measure....and his wisdom was greater than that of all the Kedemites and all the wisdom of Egypt.” What precisely did the wisdom of the Kedemites consist of? They knew how to interpret zodiac signs, were experts in astrology; they were also familiar with the tiar, a bird (raven?) based on Kohelet 10,20: “for a bird of the sky may carry the sound, and some winged creature may betray the matter.”
 Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel used to say that he liked three customs of the Orientals. They do not kiss on the mouth but on the hand; when they cut meat they always employ a knife; when they ask someone’s advice on a matter they invariably do this in the field (where they cannot be overheard). This latter practice is based on Yaakov consulting with his wives in the field on his decision to leave Lavan (compare Genesis 31,4). What did the wisdom of the Egyptians which Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel praised consist of? You will find that when Solomon was about to build the Temple he sent word to Pharaoh Necho asking him to supply him with artisans on loan to help him in the construction. How did Pharaoh answer this request? He consulted his astrologers to determine which of his artisans would not live out the year and he then dispatched these artisans to Solomon. When Solomon saw these people he realized with the aid of Holy Spirit that they were all going to die during that year. He provided each one with a shroud and sent them back to Pharaoh with a note reading: “were you short of shrouds in Egypt? Here I send you your artisans back with a gift of shrouds.” When the Book of Kings wrote that Solomon was wiser than “כל האדם, “any man” (or “Adam,”) what precisely did the unique wisdom of Adam consist of? You will find a discussion in the Midrash that when G’d was about to create Adam He consulted with the ministering angels about His plan saying: “let us make Adam in our image and in our likeness.” The angels countered: “what is so special about Adam that You want to bother with him?” G’d responded that the Adam He intended to create would be wiser than they. How did G’d proceed to prove His point? He assembled all the beasts, the birds, etc., and asked the angels to name them. The angels were unable to do this. After G’d had created Adam, He paraded all the animals in front of him and asked him: “what is the name of this animal, etc.?” Adam replied: “this one is called “lion,” this one is called “giraffe,” this one is called “sheep,“ etc.; etc. This is the meaning of Genesis 2,20: “Adam called the names of all the beasts.”‘ All these names Adam gave the beasts were not merely arbitrary names he chose to call them by, but they reflected the essence of each animal respectively. I have already discussed this in greater detail in my commentary on Genesis 2,19. When G’d asked Adam what his own name was, he answered: “Adam.” He explained that he said this seeing he had been created out of אדמה, raw material taken from the soil. Thereupon G’d asked Adam what His name was. Adam answered that G’d’s name was the tetragram. When G’d wanted to know what had given him this idea, (seeing he had not been told) he answered: for You are the Master of all creatures. We know that Adam was correct from Isaiah 42,8 אני י-ה-ו-ה הוא שמי, “I am the Lord, this is My name.” G’d meant that He adopted (or retained this name) seeing the first human being Adam had bestowed it upon Him. This was a pact between Adam and G’d that G’d would henceforth be known by the name bestowed upon him by His first intelligent creature.
 When we read in Kings I 5,11 that Solomon was wiser than Eytan the Ezrachi, whom did Jeremiah (author of that Book) have in mind when he wrote these words? It was a reference to Avraham. Psalm 89 is attributed to Avraham as the word האזרחי, at the beginning of that psalm is a reference to the “East” according to our sages in Baba Batra 15. Heyman is understood to be Moses (ibid). The philological connection is established by the word נאמן in Numbers 12,7 that G’d said of Moses בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is trusted in My entire House.” כלכל, another of the wise men mentioned in the chapter of the Book of Kings extolling Solomon’s wisdom is a reference to Joseph (who “provided” for all of Egypt economically with his wisdom). The Egyptians recognized that the only reason a man whom they considered a slave was able to rule over them was the extreme wisdom of Joseph which enabled him to maintain himself in that position. The Egyptians who had been suspicious of Joseph and his ability brought him seventy different pieces of paper, each in a different language, asking him to explain what was written thereon. Joseph was able to read each in its respective language. Not only that; Joseph also knew Hebrew, a tongue which the Egyptians did not understand. We base this on Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו, i.e. an allusion that Joseph knew something in addition to what anyone else knew. The word דרדע, another person named as very wise in Kings 5,11 is a reference to the generation of Israelites who had experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai in the desert and who had been granted insights exceeding that of any other generation. They were known as the דור דעה, “the generation imbued with knowledge.” The בני מחול who are also listed in the Book of Kings as possessing outstanding wisdom are an allusion to the people of the period of the golden calf whom G’d had forgiven their participation in that sin, hence they were called בני מחול, “people who had been pardoned.” 
 The Book of Kings there continues in quantifying Solomon’s wisdom by attributing to him no fewer than three thousand parables (proverbs) and over one thousand poems. Concerning this enigmatic statement Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni opines that he made a search of the entire Bible and could not come up with more than approximately 800 verses in which Solomon is mentioned as saying anything of significance. We are therefore forced to interpret these numbers mentioned in the Book of Kings not as original sayings recorded in the Bible but as the number of interpretations offered by Solomon on a far smaller number of texts. When Kings I 5,13 speaks about Solomon “speaking about trees,” one such example may be that Solomon examined the phenomenon of a person afflicted with the skin disease tzoraat requiring some of the wood from the tallest tree (cedar) and some of the wood from the most lowly tree (hyssop) to effect his purification. Solomon suggested that the cause of the affliction was that the person so stricken was guilty of arrogance, considering himself superior to his contemporaries. In order to be cured of this psychological defect he had to “lower” himself (even in his own eyes) to the level of the hyssop, the lowest of the trees in order to be fit to rejoin society. The Book of Kings goes on to describe part of Solomon’s wisdom as his ability to speak על הבהמה ועל העוף ועל הרמש ועל הדגים, “on the mammals, the birds, the creeping creatures and the fish.” He defined the reason why mammals, if fit to eat, require the severing of both the gullet and the windpipe, whereas birds require the severing of only one of these organs. He explained that this was related to the raw material these creatures were made of, i.e. the mammals were created from the soil (Genesis 1,24), whereas the birds were created from a mixture of water and soil, i.e. from mud (Genesis 1,20). 
 When Solomon is reported as speaking about the creeping things, the meaning is that he explained why eight of these species confer ritual impurity on contact with their carcass, etc. He also explained why people who hunt or injure these species on the Sabbath are guilty of a major infraction of the Sabbath legislation, whereas other related creeping creatures are not treated in that way by halachah, i.e. because these eight species are covered by skin (Shabbat 107). Concerning the statement in Kings that Solomon spoke about the fish, he explained why they do not require ritual slaughter in order to make them fit to eat for Israelites, as we know from Numbers 11,22 where Moses speaks of slaughter for mammals and fowl, but implies that the mere gathering in of fish make them fit to be eaten. In short, Solomon declares that whereas he was able to figure out satisfactory reasons for all the legislations of the Torah concerning these creatures, the reason for the red cow legislation had escaped him. It is interesting that the numerical value of the words והיא רחוקה, which Solomon uses to describe his inability to fathom the meaning of something, is the same as that of פרה אדומה, “red cow” (341).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:14
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:14)

**ומצינו**שנעשו תשע פרות אדומות משנצטוו במצוה זו עד שחרב הבית בשניה, ראשונה עשה משה, שניה עשה עזרא, ושמעון הצדיק ויוחנן כהן גדול עשו שתים שתים, ושביעית שרף אליהועיני, ושמינית שרף חנמאל המצרי, ותשיעית שרף ישמעאל בן פאבי, עשירית עתיד לשרוף מלך המשיח במהרה בימינו. זה שאמר הכתוב (קהלת ח׳:א׳) מי כהחכם ומי יודע פשר דבר חכמת אדם תאיר פניו ועוז פניו ישונא, מי כהחכם זה הקב"ה שנאמר (משלי ג׳:י״ט) ה' בחכמה יסד ארץ, ומי יודע פשר דבר, זה הקב"ה שפירש התורה למשה, חכמת אדם תאיר פניו, אמר רבי יודן גדול כחן של נביאים שמדמין דמות גבורה של מעלה לצורת אדם, שנאמר (דניאל ח׳:ט״ז) ואשמע קול אדם בין אולי, רבי יהודה ברבי סימון אמר מהכא (יחזקאל א׳:כ״ו) ועל דמות הכסא דמות כמראה אדם עליו מלמעלה, ועוז פניו ישונא, שהוא משתנה ממדת הדין למדת הרחמים על ישראל, כך דרשו במדרש.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
When perusing the Bible and the Talmud we find that there have been a total of 9 red cows (view of the sages in Parah 3,5). The first one was burnt during Moses’ life time.; the second one was burnt during the period of Ezra in the early years of the second Temple. Shimon Hatzadik, as well as Yochanan the High Priest (early Hasmonean period), each burnt 2 such red cows. The seventh was burnt by Elihueyni, the eighth by Chanamel the “Egyptian”, whereas the ninth and last was burnt by Ishmael ben Pabi. The tenth and final one will be burned by the Messiah (according to Maimonides).
 The meaning of Kohelet 8,1: מי כהחכם ומי יודע פשר דבר, חכמת אדם תאיר פניו ועז פניו ישנא, ”Who is like the wise? Who knows what things mean? A man’s wisdom lights up his face, and the boldness of his face is transformed” is as follows: the words: “Who is like the wise?” refer to G’d of Whom it is written: “the Lord founded earth with wisdom.” (Proverbs 3,19). The words: “who knows what things mean?” are also a reference to G’d who explained the Torah to Moses. Concerning the words: ”a man’s wisdom lights up his face,” Rabbi Yudan said that the power of the prophets is great as they are able to draw relevant comparisons between the manifestation of power in the celestial regions and the appearance of man. Rabbi Yudan bases this on Daniel 8,16: “and I heard a human voice in the midst of Ulai.” Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Seymon derives this point from Ezekiel 1,26: ועל דמות הכסא דמות כמראה אדם עליו מלמעלה, “on top of this semblance of a throne, there was a semblance of a human form.” Concerning the words: “and the boldness of his face is transformed,” this is understood to refer to G’d’s ability to switch from His manifestation as attribute of Justice to manifesting Himself as attribute of Mercy when dealing with the Jewish people. Compare Tanchuma Chukat end of verse 6.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:15
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:15)

**ועוד**דרשו ארבעה דברים יצר הרע משיב עליהם וכתיב בהם חקה, אשת אח, כלאים שעיר המשתלח, פרה אדומה. אשת אח דכתיב (ויקרא י״ח:ט״ו-ט״ז) ערות אשת אחיך לא תגלה, וכתיב בה (שם כ) ושמרתם את כל חקותי, ואם מת בלא בנים ולא נתן לה גט (דברים כ״ה:ה׳) יבמה יבא עליה. כלאים, שנאמר (דברים כ״ב:י״א) לא תלבש שעטנז, וסדין בציצית של תכלת שהוא של צמר מותר. שעיר המשתלח, דכתיב (ויקרא ט״ז:כ״ו) והמשלח את השעיר לעזאזל יכבס בגדיו, הוא עצמו הולך למיתה ומכפר לאחרים, וכתיב (שם) והיתה זאת לכם לחקת עולם. פרה אדומה, דתנן כל העוסקים בפרה מתחלה ועד סוף מטמאים בגדים, והיא עצמה מטהרת הטמאים. זה שאמר הכתוב (איוב י״ד:ד׳) מי יתן טהור מטמא לא אחד, כגון אברהם מתרח, חזקיהו מאחז, מרדכי משמעי, ישראל מאומות העולם, העוה"ב מן העוה"ז, מי עשה כן מי צוה כן מי גזר כן, לא יחידו של עולם. תמן תנינן בהרת כגריס באדם טמא, והוא כחצי פול, ואם פרחה בכולו טהור, עד כאן.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
Tanchuma goes on (on verse 7) that there are four pieces of Torah legislation which are targeted by the evil urge especially, all of which have been defined by the Torah as חקה, statute. They are: 1) the prohibition of marrying the wife of one’s brother (as a divorcee or widow with children, whereas she is to become the wife of that same brother-in-law if her husband had not sired children). 2) the prohibition of wearing wool and linen in one garment or sowing different species of seed in the same field. Seeing that it is permitted to make a talit of linen and attach woolen tzitziyot, the evil urge targets this legislation presenting it to us as illogical. 3) the law of the scapegoat which apparently carries the sins of the people as a gift to Satan. The Torah demands that the person accompanying said scape-goat purifies himself (as if the sins of these people “carried” by the beast had contaminated him whereas the scapegoat itself is killed while conferring life (forgiveness) on the sinners whose sins the beast “carries” (Leviticus 16,26). 4) The legislation of the red cow. What arouses the ire of the evil urge is the fact that all those who are involved in the ritual of the red cow, though of superior degree of ritual purity, are contaminated by it, whereas the ash of the same beast sprinkled on a ritually impure person has the power to purify such a person. According to that Midrash, Job 14,4 had this legislation in mind when he said: “Who can produce a clean thing out of an unclean one? No One!” (only G’d). Examples of G’d being able to produce the clean out of the unclean are 1) Avraham sired by an arch idolater such as his father Terach. 2) The king Chizkiyah of Yehudah whose father Achaz was a confirmed heretic. 3) Mordechai who was descended from Shimi of the tribe of Binyamin who had cursed David in the vilest terms. The people of Israel who emerged from amongst all the idolatrous Gentile nations are another example of the seemingly impossible becoming reality. So is the promise of the world of the future which will be the outcome of a transformation of this present world of lies and deceit. Job meant that the only one able to orchestrate such totally unlikely phenomena is the Unique One, the Lord! The Midrash adds the fact that the minimum size which makes an afflicted person subject to the tzoraat disease and contamination being the size of half a bean, while if the entire surface of the skin is covered by the eczema the person thus afflicted remains ritually pure.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:16
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:16)

**באר**לנו המדרש הזה החדוש הגדול הנמצא בארבע מצות אלו שנקראו חקות אשר לב כל חכם קטן מהכיל דעות נשגבות שבהן, ויצר הרע מתפתה אחריה, וכל שכן במצות פרה שיש לתמוה עליה שהיא בעצמותה וגופה כוללת דבר והפכו, טומאה וטהרה, שהיא מטמאה כל העוסקין בה והיא מטהרת הטמאים באפרה, ואפילו אבי אבות הטומאה כגון חרב וכל שאר מיני מתכות שנגעו במת הרי הן טהורין מטומאתן בהזאת שלישי ושביעי, והאיך אפשר להמציא טהרה מתוך טומאה ומי יוכל להוציא טהור מטמא, ולכך הביא פסוק מי יתן טהור מטמא. וכן נגע הבהרת שהאדם טמא כשעור חצי פול שיהיה במקום אחד מגופו, ואם ישוב כל גופו בהרת מראשו ועד רגליו טהור, הנה גם זה פלא ודבר תימה, והוא גם כן טהור מטמא.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
The Midrash just quoted explained to us the remarkable and illogical aspects of these four pieces of legislation the Torah introduces under the heading of “statute,” and in particular the totally incomprehensible fact that a little of the red cow’s ash can reverse the most severe kind of ritual impurity known as אבי אבות הטומאה, i.e. the sword which has killed a person. No wonder that the evil urge at the instigation of Satan tries to seduce us into refusing to accept such statutes which defy our intellect!. The Midrash cites the verse in Job to postulate that indeed what is legislated here could never be ordained by mortal man but had to be reserved for G’d the Creator Who alone can legislate this having demonstrated in life, (the examples of Avraham emerging from Terach, etc.) that it is not as far-fetched as meets the eye.
 The Midrash implies that if we can accept that a skin disorder involving a patch of skin less than the size of a bean can result in a person being completely ostracized from society whereas someone whose skin is completely covered with the same disease remains pure, we can also accept the four examples of legislation which form the specific target of the evil urge.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:17
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:17)

**וכן**במסכת נדה פ"ק, מי יתן טהור מטמא זה חלב מן הדם, דם האשה נעכר ונעשה חלב. ומטעם זה יסד הקליר בסלוק פרשת פרה, שאמר המת בבית הבית טהור, יצא מתוכו הבית טמא. קרא לבטן האשה בית, והוא פירוש מה ששנינו במסכת חולין פרק המקשה האשה שמת ולדה בתוך מעיה והושיטה החיה את ידה ונגעה בו, החיה טמאה טומאת שבעה והאשה טהורה עד שיצא הולד.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
The Talmud (Niddah 9) points out that the verse from Job 4,14 also may be applied to the Creator Who saw fit to convert woman’s menstrual blood into milk, i.e. something symbolizing a wasted opportunity (not becoming pregnant) turns into a life-giving nutrient for babies. Such phenomena seen in nature surely make it easier to observe legislation of the Torah even if we do not understand it. Using such reasoning Rabbi Eliezer HaKalir (the famous liturgical poet) pointed out in his poem siluk before the kedushah recited on the Sabbath we read this portion that if the dead body remains inside the house the house itself has not yet become ritually unclean. As soon as the dead body (the source of the ritual impurity) has been removed, the house itself has become ritually impure. On the face of it, this is halachically quite untenable. However, Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir uses the term “house” as a simile for a woman’s womb. His comments describe the halachah we learned in Chulin 71 that if an embryo dies within the womb of the mother and the midwife touches it upon examining the mother internally, such a dead fetus does communicate severe ritual impurity on said midwife though the mother of that fetus is not affected. As soon as the dead fetus exits from the mother she herself becomes ritually impure for seven days without touching the fetus. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Tumat Met chapter 25,12). [I believe the Midrash also wants to imply that in the event anyone accuses Moses of having invented this kind of legislation this is totally impossible as a human mind could not come up with such illogical-appearing legislation. Ed.]


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:18
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:18)

**וע"ד**הקבלה פרה אדומה רמז לתורה שבעל פה מדת הדין הקשה שהיא הגורמת כל טומאה. והנה עבודה זו מסורה ביד אלעזר כדי שתעשה על כונתו למדת הדין הקשה ולא יחשבו מחשבה רעה בעבור שהיא נשחטה בחוץ, ועל כן הקדים ואמר זאת חקת התורה, כלומר זאת המצוה המחודשה שאתה רואה שהצריכה תורה לעשותה חוץ למקדש אל תחשוב שתהיה הכונה חוץ להקב"ה ח"ו, כי נחקקת היא מן התורה, היא תורה שבע"פ והיא מדה ששית, ואף על פי שענין הפרה עמוק עמוק מי ימצאנו, במדה ששית תמצאנו כי היא הגורמת כל טומאה, וכן הטומאה מתפשטת עד שש מעלות וכמו שאבאר בסמוך, והמדה הזאת הששית היא מדתו של יצחק העקודה ממדת החסד בסוד ויעקד את יצחק בנו, שאלמלא כן תחריב את העולם בדין ותשרפנו בשלהבותה, ועל כן בעל הרחמים יתעלה אשר מחשבותיו אלינו הפליא עצה הגדיל תושיה כיצד יקחו ישראל מדת הדין הקשה להשלימה ותחזור רפה, זהו לשון ויקחו אליך פרה והיא אדומה והיא תמימה בלי מום, והוא אשר לא עלה עליה עול השעבוד כשאר המדות אשר למטה ממנה, שכן בית המקדש נקרא (ישעיהו ס״ד:י׳) בית קדשנו ותפארתנו, וכתיב (תהילים ע״ח:ס״א) ויתן לשבי עזו ותפארתו ביד צר, והכרובים גלו עם שאר הכלים ולא מצינו בהם גניזה כי אם במנורה ובארון, אבל זו שלמעלה מהם נקראים בתי גנזי, וכבר הזכרתי בסוף בראשית, והבן זה. ומה שהיתה נשחטת חוץ למקדש, מפני שהיא להעביר רוח הטומאה, ולכך מטהרת הטמאים במים חיים אל כלי, כי כן הטהרה נשפעה ממדת החסד שהיא למעלה ממדה זו גורמת כל טומאה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
A kabbalistic approach to our paragraph: The red cow is an allusion to the oral Torah, the attribute of Justice in its most severe form. This attribute is the source of ritual impurity. The reason why this chore was given to Eleazar to perform was in order that he should address the attribute of Justice in its most concentrated form. Such thoughts would not be held against him [seeing the author had stated repeatedly that all offerings are addressed to Hashem, the attribute of Mercy, Ed.] as it was slaughtered outside holy precincts and was not considered as a sacrificial offering. This is also the reason this legislation was prefaced with the words זאת חקת התורה, as if to say: “this new kind of legislation that the Torah has seen fit to reveal here as something to be performed outside the precincts of the Temple is not meant to convey the impression that it is addressed to someone other than G’d, G’d forbid.” It is anchored, i.e. embedded, נחקקת in the Torah itself. However, its origin is the oral Torah, which is the sixth of the emanations (counting from מלכות upward). Even though a full comprehension of the mystical dimension of this statute is way beyond our ability to understand, it is important to understand that the concept of ritual impurity is allowed to spread no further (upward) than the sixth emanation, that of גבורה. This is the emanation, attribute, which characterized Yitzchak who lay on the altar bound by the attribute of Mercy on the outside. If the attribute of Mercy would not have been present and active and the attribute of Justice would be allowed full reign the world would face destruction immediately. This is why the Master of Mercy provided us through this procedure with a method of turning the attribute of Justice at its fiercest into a milder form of itself. This is the meaning of the words: “they shall take to you a cow, one that is red, an unblemished specimen, an animal which has not been tainted by having been subservient to any (other) master such as the emanations (attributes) on the lower rungs of that diagram.” We know that even the next lower emanation was not saved from having a “master” impose a yoke upon it as that emanation, תפארת, harmony, has been associated with the Holy Temple which has been destroyed and therefore has been "mastered” by impure forces on earth. (Compare Isaiah 64,10 בית קדשנו ותפארתנו, and Psalms 78,61: ויתן לשבי עזו ותפארתו ביד צר, “He delivered into captivity His power and glory into the hand of the oppressor.”) The cherubs (on the cover of the Holy Ark) were exiled together with the other furnishings of the Temple and we do not find that they had been hidden, as had the Holy Ark itself as well as the Menorah, the lampstand. The emanations which are “higher” than that of תפארת, are described as בתי גנזי, “the houses of My hidden (treasure)” in Beytzah 16. I have already discussed this in connection with Genesis 6,6 (see our translation there). 
 The reason that this red cow was slaughtered outside the holy precincts of the Temple was in order for it to be able to chase away, to diffuse the spirit of impurity. This is why the remains of the cow (ash) together with water from an original source, מים חיים, would effect purification by means of the vessel within which it was contained (verse 17). Purity is derived from an influence exerted by the attribute of Mercy, an emanation higher than that of גבורה, i.e. the attribute (emanation) of Justice, the emanation responsible for every kind of impurity.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:19
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:2:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:2:19)

**וצריך**שתשכיל כי קצת ממשכילי האמת נסתפק להם במה שנעשית חוץ למקדש אם היה לתוקף קדושה שתהיה קדש קדשים לגמרי ומדרגתה יותר מכל הקרבנות הנעשים במקדש עד שאין להשוותה להם, או אם היה למעוט קדושתה שהיא חול עד שאין ראוי לעשותה במקום הקדש. ושאלו בזה, אם היא קדש קדשים היאך היא מטמאה את הטהורים, ואם היא חול היאך היא מטהרה את הטמאים. וקצתם השיבו כי האמנם קדש קדשים היא, ומה שהיא מטמאה את הטהורים, בעבור הטהור ישוב טמא בגשתו אל הקדש הטהור של מעלה, ועל כן היא מטמאה את הטהורים, כי כל המעלות הטהורות טמאות לה בקרבתם אליה, ועל כן אמר הכתוב (שמות כ״ט:ל״ז) כל הנוגע במזבח יקדש, כלומר ישרף, כי הקדש הגמור ידחה מפני הקדש של מעלה ממנו, וכן הטהור הגמור נדחה מפני הטהור שלמעלה ממנו. ואמרו אש דוחה אש, אש אוכלת אש, והוא אש דשכינה, דאמר מר הושיט אצבעו ביניהן ושורפן, כדאיתא במסכת יומא. ומה במלאכי השרת מצינו אש אוכלת אש, וכן אמרו במדרש כשעלה משה למרום הגיע עד מקום מתניאל המלאך, אמר לו למשה עלה עד מקום סנדלפון המלאך, אמר לו מתיירא אני שמא ישרפני אש סנדלפון, עד כאן. והנה לדעת קצתם תהיה קדש קדשים לגמרי, אבל הנכון לפי מה שהזכרתי למעלה שקצתה קדש וקצתה חול, קצתה חול בהעבירה רוח הטומאה, וקצתה קדש שכתוב קראה חטאת, ולכך עשו בה מעלות יתרות על שאר הקדשים, ועל כן היא מטמאה את הטהורים מצד קדש שבה, ומטהרת הטמאים מצד חול שבה בהעבירה רוח הטומאה מעליהם, וכדי ללמוד על טעם פרה שהיא להעביר רוח הטומאה לכך הוצרכה בפרשה להזכיר מיד טומאת המת ושאר הטומאות, כי אין טומאת בעלי חיים המתים אלא בסבת הכח הממית, והכח הזה נקרא רוח המושל ונקרא ג"כ הר הגדול אשר לעתיד יהיה למישור בזמן מלך המשיח שישרוף העשירית.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
You will need to appreciate that some Kabbalists are in doubt whether the fact that the procedure involving the red cow was carried out completely outside the confines of the Temple meant that it represented a higher degree of sanctity than that which pervaded the Sanctuary. In other words, everything connected with the red cow would have represented “holy of holies,” whereas only a small portion of the Sanctuary itself was designated as “holy of holies.” If so, the level of sanctity represented by the red cow as well as its remains would have been superior to that of the sacrificial animals offered on the Altar inside the precincts of the Temple so that there was really no comparison between the red cow and its counterparts inside the Holy Temple.
 On the other hand, some Kabbalists think that the reason the procedure of the red cow was conducted outside holy precincts points to the fact that its sanctity was below that of even the lowest level of sanctity inside the holy precincts and that this is the reason that no part of it was processed inside those confines. These people then raised the following question: assuming that the red cow was of such a high level of sanctity that it surpassed the levels of sanctity in the Temple, how could it possibly confer impurity on its (uncontaminated) handlers? On the other hand, if it was of such inferior sanctity that it had to be slaughtered and its remains kept outside sacred ground, how was it capable of conferring purity on the previously impure?
 Some Kabbalists answered these questions by saying that indeed the entire red cow was “holy of holies” and that the reason it conferred impurity on its handlers was that any pure person on earth will automatically become impure through contact with extra-terrestrial purity (which is of far higher degree). Seeing the red cow represented extra-terrestrial i.e. celestial purity (or sanctity) we do not have a problem. This concept is reflected in the Torah writing (Exodus 29,37) “anyone touching the Altar will become holy,” i.e. will be burnt (as had happened to the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu). Total terrestrial sanctity is relegated when it confronts celestial sanctity. What applies to relative sanctity, i.e. terrestrial sanctity versus celestial sanctity, also applies to terrestrial purity as opposed to celestial purity. This may be the meaning of Yuma 21 that אש דוחה אש, אש אוכלת אש, “one category of fire displaces, relegates, another category of fire.” The “fire” of the Shechinah displaces or relegates terrestrial fire.
 The Talmud there describes the penalty incurred by the angels who had opposed the creation of Adam by saying that he did not deserve G’d’s consideration. G’d is reported as having stretched out His finger at these angels and burning them. If differences in the quality of fire exist among the angels in the celestial regions it is easy to understand why terrestrial fire should be inferior to even the lowest of the celestial fires.
 We are told in a Midrash that when Moses ascended Mount Sinai he reached a certain spot where the angel Matniel barred his way. This angel instructed Moses to proceed further and meet the angel Sandalfon. Moses answered that he was afraid to do so as that angel (angel of fire) would likely burn him. Thus far the Midrash. [Our author’s point in quoting this excerpt is simply to draw our attention to “fires” in celestial regions. Ed.]
 According to some Kabbalists the red cow was entirely in the category of holy of holies. Personally, I feel that in some respects it was holy whereas in other respects it was totally secular in status. Seeing that the red cow transmits a spirit of ritual impurity it contains a purely secular element. Seeing, however, that the Torah refers to it as חטאת, i.e. acting as a means to expiate, it must also contain an element of holiness. Because of the fact that it is composed of two opposite elements the Torah applied stricter rules to it than apply to the animals which serve as sacrificial offerings on the Altar, seeing no one is in doubt about their status.
 The reason that the Torah writes here about the rules of purification for people contaminated by impurity conferred by contact with the bodies of human beings who have died, is that the ash of the red cow is so crucial in the purification process of such people. The root cause of living creatures contracting spiritual impurity dates back to the original cause of death, the serpent in Gan Eden. This root cause is known as כח המושל, or הר הגדול, (Compare Kohelet 10,4 and Zecharyah 4,7 respectively). Nachmanides writes that the bodies of people whose death is due to נשיקה, a “kiss” by G’d, do not become ritually impure. The prophet Zecharyah in that verse describes the elimination of death, the angel of death, etc., in the future. He employs the simile of the “great mountain which will be flattened at that time” as the simile describing the overcoming of the greatest obstacle in our lives on this earth prior to the coming of the Messiah. This is what Maimonides had in mind when he stipulates that the red cow which will be burned by the Messiah will be the tenth and final one as with the absence of death there will be no need for further such means of purification.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:3:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:3:1)

[מובא בפירושו לפסוק ב'] אל אלעזר הכהן, כשם שנקהלו על אהרן הכהן לעשות העגל, ולפי שאהרן עשה העגל לא נתנה לו עבודה זו שאין קטיגור נעשה סניגור.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:11:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:11:1)

**הנוגע במת, הוא יתחטא בו.** במי אפר פרה שהיא מטהרת טמא מת. ומכאן יצא המנהג שלנו ברחיצת ידים אחר שבאים מן המת, רמז למי אפר פרה, והוא גם כן רמז לתחית המתים שכל העולם יהיה נזהר מן הטומאות, הוא שאמר הנביא (יחזקאל ל״ו:כ״ה) וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם. גם תלישת העשבים רמז לזה כי העשב לעת ערב ימולל ויבש ובבקר יציץ, על שם שכתוב (תהילים ע״ב:ט״ז) ויציצו מעיר כעשב הארץ.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
הנוגע במת, הוא יתחטא בו, “whoever touches the corpse of a human being...he shall purify himself with it , etc.” The word בו refers to the mixture of the ash of the red cow and the spring-water from its respective container. This verse is the origin of the widely accepted practice that when we leave after a visit to the cemetery we wash our hands as a symbolic gesture. It is merely an allusion to the ritual (nowadays impossible to fulfill) of the purification through the red cow. At the same time the practice is also an allusion to the resurrection of the dead seeing the prophet (Ezekiel 36,5) described this resurrection in the following words: “I will sprinkle upon you pure waters and you will become pure.” The practice of plucking some blades of grass from the cemetery is also an allusion to the concept of the resurrection of the dead as the grass which wilts at night and resurrects itself in the morning is referred to by the psalmist (Psalms 72,16) “let men sprout up in towns like country grass.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:13:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:13:1)

**ולא יתחטא את משכן ה' טמא.** אם נכנס לעזרה, אפילו בטבילה בלא הזאה, וטעמו את שמשכן ה' טמא, וכן (שם עא) לכל יבא גבורתך, לכל שיבא, ורבים כן בחסרון שי"ן. ולמטה כשהוא אומר כי את מקדש ה' טמא, טעמו כאשר את מקדש ה' טמא, מלשון (דברים כ״ב:ו׳) כי יקרא קן צפור. ואמר משכן אף על פי שאין קדושתו קדושת עולם כבית עולמים, ואמר מקדש אף שלא נמשח בשמן המשחה כמשכן.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
ולא יתחטא, את משכן ה' טמא, “if he fails to purify himself, he has contaminated the Tabernacle of the Lord.” The warning contained in this verse applies if the individual in question enters the courtyard of the Temple (Tabernacle) even if he had immersed himself in a ritual bath without having undergone the ritual of sprinkling the holy water with the ash upon himself on the third and seventh day of the purification process. The meaning of the word את in front of the word משכן is the same as if the Torah had written שמשכן ה' טמא. We have a similar construction in Psalms 71,18 where the psalmist writes לכל יבא גבורתך, where the meaning of the words is לכל שיבא גבורתך, “so that I can tell everyone (of the next generation) of Your mighty acts.” There are many other examples in the Bible where the letter ש has not been written but is implied.
 In verse 20 of our chapter the Torah changes its syntax writing: כי את מקדש ה' טמא, “for he has contaminated the Sanctuary of the Lord.” Why did the Torah once refer to the Sanctuary as משכן and once as מקדש? The reason the Torah uses both expressions is to tell us that although the Tabernacle was only a temporary structure to be replaced by a permanent one and I would have thought its sanctity is inferior to that of the Temple, this is not so. On the other hand, I could have thought that the Tabernacle was holier seeing it had been anointed with the holy oil of anointing as opposed to the Temple which was not so anointed. By writing both expressions the Torah equates both structures in their levels of sanctity.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:13:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:13:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:13:2)

**והרמב"ן**ז"ל פירש כי בכאן חייב כרת על הנכנס למשכן בטומאה אפילו טבל כיון שלא הזה עליו מי אפר פרה, ולמטה שאמר מקדש חייב כרת על האוכל בשר קדש בטומאה, וכבר חייב כרת באוכל מבשר זבח השלמים וטומאתו עליו, ויהיה מקדש ה' כמו קדש ה', את מקדשו ממנו, והפרשה תכלול חיוב כרת על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
Nachmanides writes that in our verse (13) where the person who had failed to purify himself has entered the holy precincts he is guilty of the karet penalty even if he had immersed himself in a ritual bath beforehand seeing he had failed to apply the ritual involving the ash of the red cow. When the Torah appears to repeat itself in verse 20 the subject is not the entering of holy precincts before purification but the consuming of sacred food, meat from the offerings before one has completed the purification process involving the ash of the red cow. The difficulty is that the Torah did not need to tell us this as we know it already from Leviticus 7,20 where the karet penalty is spelled out for anyone eating sacred meat while in a state of ritual impurity [even a lesser degree than impurity caused through contact with a corpse. Ed.] Nachmanides therefore understands the word מקדש in verse 20 as similar to מ-קדשי, “the sacred things of,” similar to Numbers 18,29 את מקדשו ממנו,“sacred parts of it.” The portion here would then include both kinds of impurities resulting in the karet penalty for the person remaining in that state and becoming guilty of either transgression while contaminated.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:13:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:13:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:13:3)

**ויתכן**לומר כי משכן ומקדש בא לרמוז בית המקדש של מטה הוא דוגמת בית המקדש של מעלה וכנגדו, וכן הוא אומר (שמות טו) מכון לשבתך פעלת יי, מכון לשבתך בכאן המשכן כנגד המקדש, והכונה שהוא מטמא המשכן והמקדש ג"כ שהוא כנסת ישראל בית המקדש של מעלה, ועל זה כתב הרב כי את מקדש ה' טמא רמז למקדש המקדש, כלומר לכנסת ישראל שהוא מקדש למקדש של מטה ושורה שם, או לכנסת ישראל שהיא מקדש למקדש של מעלה והוא השם המיוחד, ומפני שמקדש של מטה כנגד של מעלה לכך אמר משכן ומקדש, וכן כתיב (מלכים א ח) בנה בניתי בית זבול לך, בית מכוון כנגד זבול. ופסוק מלא מצינו (תהלים קכב) ירושלים הבנויה כעיר שחוברה לה יחדו. וזהו סוד הלשון בשם ירושלים המורה על שנים, כלשון עינים אזנים וכיוצא בהם, ואות יו"ד שחסר הוא בית המקדש של מעלה היא ה"א אחרונה שבשם, ולכך תמצא ה' ירושלים מלאים במקרא לרמוז כי הה"א חוברה לה בזמן השלמות.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
It is possible to understand the word משכן in verse 13 as a reference to the Tabernacle on earth, whereas the word מקדש is a reference to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions and the Torah teaches us that both Tabernacle and the eventual Temple were parallel in their function to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions. All of this is based on Exodus 15,17 מכון לשבתך פעלת ה' מקדש ד' כוננו ידיך, “the foundation of Your dwelling place that You Hashem have made, the Sanctuary my Lord which Your hands established.” You find משכן and מקדש equated in that verse. When someone introduces impurity into the Sanctuary or Tabernacle on earth he simultaneously defiles the Sanctuary, i.e. Tabernacle in the celestial regions. Ezekiel 45,4 speaks of מקדש למקדש, Nachmanides understands verse 20 as a reference to the concept expressed by the prophet, i.e. that the כנסת ישראל lends sanctity to the Temple in the terrestrial regions by taking up residence there. It is also possible that it relates to the Sanctuary in the celestial regions whose sanctity is enhanced through the כנסת ישראל, so that it will serve as Sanctuary for the highest attribute of the Lord, a concept expressed by Solomon in Kings I 8,14 when he said: בנה בניתי בית זבול לך, “I have surely built a residence for Your celestial region known as zevul.” This whole idea is expressed even more directly by Psalms 122,3 and explained in Taanit 5 ירושלים הבנויה כעיר שחוברה לה יחדו, “Jerusalem derives its sanctity because it is a city joined with its counterpart, i.e. celestial Jerusalem.” This is the mystical dimension of the very word ירושלים which, because of its plural ending, points at a dual city, one terrestrial the other celestial. It is similar to the word עינים, meaning “two eyes,” רגלים, meaning “two feet,“ and many other similar examples. Whenever the word ירושלם is spelled without the letter י it means that the missing letter is the reference to the celestial Jerusalem seeing that on the five occasions the word is spelled in the Bible with this letter this is a reminder that seeing the letter ה, “five,” is the last letter in the tetragrammaton, that in due course Jerusalem on earth and Jerusalem in the heaven will be joined in a real sense.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:14:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:14:1)

**אדם כי ימות באהל.** הוא הדין בבית, אבל הזכיר אהל מפני שישראל במדבר היו יושבי אהלים, והכתוב אזהרה לשעה ולדורות. ומכאן שאין מטמאין באהל אלא ישראל הקרוין אדם, שנאמר (יחזקאל ל״ד:ל״א) אדם אתם. ואע"פ שמצינו בעו"ג (במדבר ל״א:מ׳) ונפש אדם ששה עשר אלף, כבר תירצו התם ביבמות פרק הבא על יבמתו התם משום בהמה. וכן נמי מה שכתוב (יונה ד׳:י״א) רבו אדם אשר לא ידע וגו', התם מפרש נמי משום בהמה, כלומר שלא נקראו האומות בשום מקום אדם בלבד אלא אם כן יזכיר הכתוב בהמה. ומה שכתוב (תהילים קכ״ד:ב׳) בקום עלינו אדם, כבר דרשו בו בפרק קמא דמגלה ולא מלך. ומה שכתוב (ישעיהו מ״ג:ד׳) ואתן אדם תחתיך, דרשו בברכות אל תקרי אדם אלא אדום. ומה שכתוב (ויקרא י״ח:ה׳) אשר יעשה אותם האדם, ודרשו רז"ל כהן לוי וישראל לא נאמר אלא האדם, מלמד שאפילו גוי ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול, כן דרשו בסנהדרין, אך פירשו בזה כי הוא מיתור הה"א שבא לרבות אפילו גוי, שהרי לא אמר אשר יעשה אותם אדם. ומה שאמר ירמיה (ירמיהו ל״ב:כ׳) אשר שמת אותות ומופתים בארץ מצרים ובישראל ובאדם, אדם המצריים, לפי שהמכות ההם היו פורענות.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
אדם כי ימות באהל, “when a person dies in a tent (or house), etc.” although the legislation which follows applies equally to people dying inside a house or other roofed structure, the Torah chose the example of “tent” since at the time the Israelites in the desert lived in tents. Legislation mentioned here is valid both at the time it was written and for all future generations. We learn from here that contamination caused by being in the same enclosed airspace with a corpse results only from the corpse of a Jew as only Jews qualify for the title “אדם.” (compare Ezekiel 34,31 “for you My flock are אדם”). Although there are verses scattered throughout the Bible in which the Gentiles are referred to by the same “title” (Numbers 31,11), the sages have already answered this apparent contradiction in Yevamot 61, namely the word had to be used there in order to distinguish Gentiles from beasts which were also numbered as part of the booty. A similar explanation applies to the verse in Jonah 4,11 where אדם is contrasted with the beasts. In other words, the only time the term אדם is used for Gentiles is when it is in contradistinction to בהמה, beast. We are still faced with the word אדם referring clearly to Gentiles in Psalms 124,2. Megillah 11 explains that in that verse the word אדם means “ordinary human,” not a “king.” Another instance which appears to bestow the title אדם on Gentiles is found in Isaiah 43,4. The Talmud Berachot 62 suggests that the word in Isaiah be read as אדום instead of as אדם, i.e. that the “people” G’d will give as ransom for the Jewish people will be the Edomites. A more problematic text involving the word אדם is Leviticus 18,5 on which Sanhedrin 59 suggests that even a Gentile who studies the laws of sexual chastity and observes them attains the level of purity reserved for the High Priest. It is pointed out that in the relevant verse the word for the Gentile is האדם as distinct from אדם. Whenever the Torah speaks of האדם, Gentiles are not excluded. This leaves us with Jeremiah 32,20: where G’d speaks of miracles performed “before Israelites and אדם,” which appears to imply that both peoples merited the miracles, i.e. were on similar ethical levels. The problem is answered by pointing out that whereas these miracles were beneficial for the Israelites, they were at the same time extremely damaging to the Egyptians who are referred to in that verse as אדם. It is clear therefore that far from equating the Israelites and the אדם, i.e. Egyptians as on a similar moral level the prophet wanted to contrast the levels of Israelites with that of people characterised as אדם.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:14:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:14:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:14:2)

**כל הבא אל האהל.** טמא, וכל שכן הנושא את המת, שהרי בנבלה כתיב (ויקרא י״א:מ׳) והנושא את נבלתה, ומה נבלה שאינה מטמאה טומאת שבעה מטמאה במשא. ק"ו המת שמטמא טומאת שבעה שמטמא במשא, אבל שתק הכתוב מלהזכיר טומאת משא במת מפני שהוא ק"ו מאהל, ומה כל הבא אל האהל טמא לא כ"ש הנושא. ושתק הכתוב כדרך ששתק מאיסור הבת שהוא ק"ו מבת הבת, או איסור אכילת בשר בחלב שהוא ק"ו מבשול.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
כל הבא אל האהל, “anyone entering the tent, etc.” is contaminated as a result. If someone carries the corpse or touches it he is most certainly no less contaminated than someone merely sharing the same airspace with the corpse. Seeing that we have legislation decreeing ritual impurity on anyone carrying dead beasts which had died by natural causes as opposed to ritual slaughter although such impurity lasts only for a day, it is clear that carrying a human corpse would be at least as much a cause for contracting severe ritual impurity as if one merely shared the same airspace with it. This is why the Torah did not have to bother to spell out this detail in connection with contact with a corpse through carrying it. We find a similar silence of the Torah on the prohibition of a father sleeping with his daughter seeing the Torah had already forbidden sexual relations between the same man with his granddaughter (Leviticus 18,10). Another example of the Torah remaining silent on a law that can be derived by simple logic (קל וחומר) is the prohibition to eat meat and milk together. If the Torah had already forbidden for milk and meat to be cooked together, it is clear that it must not be eaten together either after it has been cooked.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:16:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:16:1)

**בחלל חרב או במת.** היה לו לומר בחלל או במת, ומה שהזכיר חרב דבר הכתוב בהווה. וכשאמר בחלל חרב הוא הדין בחלל אבן ועץ. דרשו רז"ל חרב הרי הוא כחלל, והטעם לפי שהחרב עלול הוא אצל הטומאה, והרי הוא אבי אבות כחלל עצמו כשנגע במת, כי הוא סבת ההשחתה ומצד הכח המשחית, ומה שיש לו דין חלל הוא לטמא אדם וכלים טומאת שבעה אבל לא לטמא באהל, ממה שכתוב אדם כי ימות באהל, אדם מטמא באהל ולא חרב, שאלו היה החרב שנגע בו האדם מטמא באהל היו כל הכהנים אסורין ליכנס בבתים, שבכלן יש חרב טמא ויהיה מטמא אותה באהל, וכענין ששלח הרב ר' חיים ז"ל מאשכנז לר"ת ז"ל אי זה בית אשר תבנו לי. ומה שאמרו חרב הרי הוא כחלל אין להבין בו חרב דוקא אלא הוא הדין לכל מיני מתכות שאם נגעו במת דינן כמת עצמו, ואין להבין בו החרב שנהרג בו החלל כדעת מקצת הגאונים ז"ל, אלא ודאי כל שאר מיני מתכות יש להם דין חרב וכולן כחלל עצמו, אם נגעו באבי אבות הרי הן אבי אבות, ואם נגעו באב הטומאה הרי הן אב הטומאה, זה הכלל כל מיני מתכות דינם כחלל להיותם עלולים אצל הטומאה במי שנוגעין להיותם כמוהו. וזה ממה שאמרו במסכת שבת פרק הזורק אמר שמואל והוא שקשורה בשלשלת של ברזל, והני מילי לענין טומאה דרחמנא אמר בחלל חרב, חרב הרי הוא כחלל. וזה מבואר שהחרב והשלשלת של ברזל שוין לענין טומאה. ועוד בפ"ק דפסחים הכא בנר של מתכת עסקינן, דרחמנא אמר בחלל חרב, חרב הרי הוא כחלל, וזה ברור כשנגע הנר במת, לא שנהרג בו. ושנינו במשנה אבות הטומאה השרץ ושכבת זרע וטמא מת, וכיון שהנוגע במת הוא אב הטומאה הרי המת עצמו אבי אבות הטומאה, ומן הידוע כי הטומאה מתפשטת עד שש מעלות ולא יותר, ואלו הן שש מעלות הטומאה, אבי אבות, שני לו אב הטומאה, שלישי לו ראשון לטומאה, רביעי לו שני בחולין, חמישי לו שלישי בתרומה, ששי לו רביעי בקדש, לא מצינו טומאה עולה למעלה מששה כי הטהרה דבקה במעלה השביעית הנקראת מים טהורים בזמן הגאולה, כענין שכתוב (יחזקאל ל״ו:כ״ה) וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים, ובזמן הגלות נקראת שערי דמעה, שהדמעה באה מכח המים, ואמרו רז"ל כל השערים ננעלו חוץ משערי דמעה. והמעלה השביעית נקראת אצל רז"ל מים העליונים, והיא מדת החסד שהיא שביעית ממטה למעלה, ונקראו מים חיים, הוא שאמר הנביא (זכריה י״ד:ח׳) ביום ההוא יצאו מים חיים מירושלים, והיא ירושלים של מעלה. ומזה תמצא בפרשת יום שני חמשה פעמים מים, ויום שלישי שני פעמים מים, והכל שבעה, כי מלאכת המים לא נגמרה עד יום שלישי. ודרשו רז"ל במסכת מכשירים פרק ח' שבעה משקין הן, המים והיין והשמן והדבש והדם והטל והחלב, הראשון כנגד המים שהם משקה, והששה כנגד ששה תולדות שיש בו. וכל אחד משבע משקין הללו הזכיר בו הכתוב לשון שתיה או לשון השקאה, המים דכתיב (שמות י״ז:ו׳) ויצא ממנו מים ושתה העם וכתיב (בראשית כ״ד:מ״ג) השקיני נא מעט מים, היין דכתיב (ויקרא י׳:ט׳) יין ושכר אל תשת וכתיב (ירמיהו ל״ה:ב׳) והשקית אותם יין, השמן דכתיב (ישעיהו כ״ה:ו׳) משתה שמנים, הדם דכתיב (במדבר כ״ג:כ״ד) ודם חללים ישתה וכתיב (יחזקאל ל״ט:י״ז) ואכלתם בשר ושתיתם דם, הטל נקרא מים דכתיב (שופטים ו׳:ל״ח) וימץ טל מן הגזה מלא הספל מים, הדבש דכתיב (דברים ל״ב:י״ג) ויניקהו דבש מסלע, החלב דכתיב (שופטים ד׳:י״ט) ותפתח את נאד החלב ותשקהו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
בחלל חרב או במת, “someone slain by the sword or one that died naturally;” if the Torah had wanted to equate the two examples of corpses it should have used the expression: בחלל או במת, “someone slain or dead of natural causes.” Why did the Torah mention חרב, “sword?” The Torah chose an example of most victims who die a violent death. Although the Torah chose the example of the “sword” as the cause of death, the same contamination occurs when the victim was killed by a stone or a wooden arrow, for instance (Maimonides Hilchot Tumat Met 1,2).
 Our sages in Shabbat 101 point out, however, that the example חרב, i.e. a metal tool, means that the metal weapon contracts the same degree of impurity אבי אבות הטומאה, the absolute primary cause of ritual contamination, as does the corpse itself. The reason is that the sword, by definition, is a means for causing death, is designed to cause death and therefore ritual impurity. The sword, while halachically contracting a degree of impurity equaling that of its victim, the corpse, in that the impurity it confers upon those touching it lasts for seven days, and requires the same purification rites as does the one who became defiled through contact with the corpse itself, does not confer such impurity by the person being merely in the same airspace with it. We derive this from the words אדם כי ימות באהל, “i.e. when a human being dies inside a tent, etc.” the corpse can confer ritual impurity upon such a person, the sword by which he was killed, however, cannot confer that particular type of impurity. The truth of this statement is guaranteed, as if such a sword could confer impurity by a survivor being in the same tent with it, all the priests would be forbidden to enter their own houses seeing each of them contains a sword or metal tool such as a nail which by its very presence would confer impurity on the priest concerned.
 This concept has been illustrated by Rabbi Chayim from Germany who sent the following inquiry to Rabbeinu Tam (grandson of Rashi): Seeing that every house at one time or another contains a corpse, and it also has metal nails which are an integral part of its construction, what house can one build in order to avoid ritual contamination by these factors? (The Rabbi quoted Isaiah 66,1 “which is the kind of house that you (man) can build for Me (G’d)” as the gist of his question.) Clearly, Rabbi Chayim understood the reference to חרב in our verse as including all kinds of objects made of iron, otherwise his question does not make sense. [this is in contrast to some authorities who understand the word חרב as applying only to the murder weapon or other weapons made of the same material]. The question therefore presupposes that Rabbi Chayim applied the term חרב to mean that any metal object would confer the status of absolute prime cause of ritual contamination on anyone in the same airspace as it. This understanding of the halachah is based on a statement in Shabbat 101 where Samuel said that a ship (and contents) which lay at anchor and was connected to the harbor by means of iron chains will incur ritual impurity of primary severity (אב הטומאה) if the chain touched such a source of ritual impurity on the quay. Samuel’s statement was meant to apply to degrees of ritual impurity which are of Biblical force, as opposed to ritual impurity due to Rabbinic decree. At any rate it is clear from what he said that he did not distinguish between a sword and some other tool made of metal.
 In Pesachim 14, where mixing oil of the Menorah which has been disqualified by differing degrees ritual impurity is discussed, the Talmud states that the words בחלל חרב in our verse mean that a metal lampstand which has become contaminated by a primary cause of impurity has the same degree of impurity as the corpse which made it impure in the first place. This is beyond dispute where the lampstand was in direct contact with the corpse (after death) as opposed to it having been the cause of death of the person who contaminated it.
 We have learned in Keylim 1,1: “primary causes of ritual impurity are: 1) a dead unclean reptile; 2) semen which is still virile; 3) a person who became ritually unclean through a corpse. Seeing the person who was in some kind of contact with a corpse becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, it is clear that the source of that impurity, i.e. the corpse itself must be of a higher degree of impurity, i.e. the one known as אבי אבות הטומאה, “the root cause of impurity.” It is well known that derivatives of such a root cause of impurity have the ability to confer descending degrees of impurity to a sixth level (generation) not further. [In other words, anyone more than six persons or objects removed from the root cause cannot be negatively affected by such a root cause. Ed.] The six levels of ritual impurity are known in descending order of severity as: 1) אבי אבות הטומאה, 2) אב הטומאה, 3) ראשון לטומאה, 4) שני לטומאה, 5) שלישי לטומאה, (applicable only to תרומה, produce imbued with a low level of holiness. 6) רביעי לטומאה, (applicable only to matters imbued with high levels of sanctity such as sacrificial meat). We do not encounter a further 7th level of impurity as permanent purity is attached to anything that far removed from a primary cause of impurity. These waters are known as מים טהורים, “pure waters,” as we know from Ezekiel 36,25: “I will sprinkle upon you (the people of Israel) pure waters.” During periods of exile, these waters are known as שערי דמעה, “the gates of tears,” seeing that tears are a derivative of the power reposing in water. Our sages in Baba Metzia 59 are on record that even when all other “gates” (such as the gate of prayer) are locked, the gates of tears always remain open, i.e. our prayers when accompanied by tears always can reach heaven. This seventh level of purity [i.e. a level beyond possible contamination, Ed.] is known as the מים העליונים, the waters of the upper regions (Chagigah 15). This is another name for the attribute (emanation) of חסד which is the seventh emanation counting from the lowest one, מלכות. In the Torah these waters are described as מים חיים, “waters which retain the quality of life.” They are the waters which the prophet Zecharyah refers to as emanating from Jerusalem on the day heralding the redemption (compare Zecharyah 14,8). When the prophet describes these waters as coming forth from Jerusalem, he refers to celestial Jerusalem. When you peruse the Torah’s report of the creation you will find the word מים mentioned 5 times in connection with the second day of creation and 2 more times in connection with the third day of creation. These seven occasions when מים is mentioned on those two days allude to the fact that the work of the second day was not really complete until the third day. [This is also why the words: “G’d saw that it was good,” are absent in the Torah’s report of what was created on the second day. Ed.].
 Our sages in Tractate Machshirim 6,4 speak of the existence of seven different kinds of liquids and the potential ability or otherwise of these liquids to contract and confer ritual impurity. The liquids in question are 1) dew; 2) water; 3) wine; 4) oil; 5) blood; 6) milk; 7) bees’ honey. The first time the word מים appears in the Torah in the report of G’d’s creative activity on the second day corresponds to the basic concept of water, a regular liquid. The other six times when the Torah refers to מים in its report of G’d’s activity on the second and third day what are meant are the derivatives of the basic element water, i.e. the six additional liquids (something fit to drink) mentioned in Machshirim. All the six other liquids listed in the Mishnah in Machshirim appear in the Bible as “drinks” employing either the term שתיה or השקאה. In Exodus 17,6 the Torah writes: “some water emerged (from the rock) and the people drank.” In Genesis 24,43 Eliezer asks Rivkah to let him drink some water. In Leviticus 10,9 the Torah forbids the priests to drink wine or liquor on certain occasions. In Jeremiah 35,2 G’d told the prophet to go to the house of the Rechabites and to give them wine to drink. The term used there is והשקית. Oil is used as a liquid used for drinking in Isaiah 25,6: “the Lord will make on this mount for all the peoples a banquet, משתה, containing rich oils.” Blood is mentioned in the Torah as a drink in Numbers 23,24: “Israel will drink the blood of the slain” (Balak’s prophecy/blessing). Another verse mentioning blood as a drink is found in Ezekiel 39,17 where G’d tells the prophet to address the birds promising them: “assemble and gather from all around for the sacrificial feast I am preparing for you;..... eat flesh and drink blood.” Dew is referred to as water, מים, in Judges 6,38 where Gideon is described as “squeezing the dew from the fleece, a bowlful of water.” Bees’ honey is mentioned as a drink in Deut. 32,13: “He made him suck honey from a rock.” Finally, milk is described as a drink in Judges 4,19: “she (Yael) opened a skin-bottle of milk and gave him some to drink.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:19:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:19:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:19:1)

**והזה הטהור על הטמא.** דקדק רבי עקיבא בגמרא דיומא ממה שכתוב על הטמא ולא אמר עליו, שבא ללמד שאם הזה על הטמא טהור ועל הטהור טמא. ואמר כי על זה אמר שלמה ע"ה (קהלת ז׳:כ״ג) אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
והזה הטהור על הטמא, “the ritually clean person is to sprinkle on the ritually impure person, etc.” Rabbi Akiva derived from the words על הטמא instead of simply עליו, “on him,” that the extra word teaches that if the ritually impure person was sprinkled with the ash/water mixture he would be purified by it, whereas if accidentally a ritually pure person was sprinkled with the same ash/water mixture such a person would become ritually impure as a result (compare Yuma 14). This is why Solomon said in Kohelet 7,23: “I said I want to acquire wisdom, but it has remained still far from me.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:21:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:21:1)

**ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו.** כיון שהוא טהור והוא מטהר את הטמא למה יטמא שיהא טעון כבוס בגדים, אבל הוא טמא מקלוח המים שהוא חוזר על המזה שמקבל טומאה ממנו ולכך יכבס בגדיו, כך שמעתי. אבל דעת רז"ל בגמרא דיומא שאין המזה טעון כבוס בגדים, וכך אמרו מאי מזה נושא, והאי דאסיק קרא למזה בלשון נושא, משום דנושא מי נדה אינו טעון כבוס בגדים אלא כשעור הזאה, דהיינו כדי שיטבול ראשי גבעולין.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו, “the one who administers the ash/water mixture has to wash his clothes.” Seeing that he himself is ritually pure and he administers the ash/water mixture to a ritually impure person why should he be required to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath? The reason is that in the process of sprinkling the ash/water mixture on the ritually impure person some of it may have splashed his clothing. This is what I have heard as an explanation of this halachah. However, the collective opinion of the sages in Yuma 14 is that the person concerned does not need to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath at all. The sages there understand the word מזה in our verse to mean נושא, “carries.” The reason why the Torah chooses the unusual word מזה to describe carrying is that the amount of water needed to wash the clothes in question is no larger than the amount of the ash/water mixture needed to sprinkle on the ritually impure person, just enough water as is absorbed by dipping the tips of the hyssop stalks in the mixture.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:22:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 19:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bamidbar/r/19:22:1)

**וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא והנפש הנוגעת תטמא.** פירוש והנפש הנוגעת במה שיגע בו הטמא תטמא, והוא מה שאמרו ז"ל דקריב בדיקרב.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא, והנפש הנוגעת תטמא, “Anything which the contaminated person will touch shall become contaminated, and the person who touches him will become contaminated.” The meaning of the words והנפש הנוגעת is: “a person who touches another who has been contaminated by direct contact with the corpse will also be contaminated.”