זאת חקת התורה, “This is the statute of the law of the Torah;” The “statute” referred to here are the laws of ritual defilement and subsequent rites of purification. They were communicated to the people on the first day of Nissan, on the day the Tabernacle was erected ready for service. (Talmud, tractate Gittin folio 60). It had to be communicated on that day, as on the following day the red heifer, the instrument without which purification could not take place, was burned. Without knowledge of these procedures, the Passover, which would be offered on the fourteenth day of that month could not have been offered. The Torah had stipulated in verse 4 of our chapter that the location for the sprinkling of the waters containing the ash of that red heifer was opposite, i.e. facing the Tabernacle. It had to be inserted here as there were people, who as a result of the rebellion of Korach had become ritually contaminated.

אשר צוה ה, “which the Lord had commanded;” we do not find where the Lord had commanded this previously, a phenomenon we referred to already in our commentary on Exodus 10,3.

ויקחו אליך, “they shall bring to you;” seeing that the priests had been charged with ensuring that the Tabernacle precincts would not be breached by unauthorised Israelites, they had to be provided with the means to purify people who had violated these rules through ignorance or carelessness. This is also what is meant in verse 3, where G-d includes Elazar, Aaron’s, son as a recipient of this red heifer who is to attend to the ritual involving it. It is a gift to the priests from the community.

ונתתם אותה אל אלעזר הכהן, “you (pl.) are to give it (the red heifer) to the priest Elazar. Rashi explains why this procedure was entrusted to Elazar, whereas all future red heifers were slaughtered etc., either by the High Priest or even an ordinary priest. Some commentators, explaining the plain meaning of our verse, suggest that seeing that handling the red heifer would contaminate the High Priest, so that he would be incapable of performing his duties for at least seven days, the task was entrusted to his deputy. Here, the deputy High Priest was entrusted with this task; according to Rashi, meaning that he was in overall charge of the entire ritual. He took the heifer out of the camp, slaughtered it, took some of its blood, sprinkling it in the direction of the Tabernacle, appointed a ritually pure man and deposited the ash of the heifer after it had been burnt in the vessel assigned for this. He took a little branch from a cedar tree and some hyssop, plus some red wool and cast it into the flames surrounding the red heifer. Some commentators note that seven ordinary priests were involved in preparing the ashes of the Red Heifer, one for each activity enumerated in this comment.

והוציא אותה, “he will transport it (the red heifer) outside the camp; this verse has been abbreviated, seeing that the Torah did not tell us who was to take the red heifer outside the camp. Neither did it name who performed the other tasks, slaughtering, burning, collecting ashes, etc. ושחט אותה לפניו, “he is to slaughter it in his presence.” The reference is to Elazar’s presence. At this point, Rashi adds that a non priest, a layman, performed the slaughtering. Some versions add that Elazar was watching this procedure. Apparently Rashi’s point was to inform us that the slaughtering did not require to be performed by the deputy High Priest. (Compare Rashi in Talmud Yuma folio 45, as well as Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel). It is not unusual to describe the task performed by an ordinary priest as having been performed by a “stranger,” i.e. not a high ranking priest. [There had been only three priests at that time. Ed.] The term: זר may be understood as “layman,” not a ranking official. We find an example of this in the Talmud tractate Baba Batra, folio 110. [The subject under discussion there is a misunderstanding concerning this word having more than one possible meaning. עבודה זרה was understood as idolatry there, whereas it was supposed to mean: “unfamiliar work.”] According to Rabbi Yitzchok, slaughter of the red heifer by a non priest was inadmissible.

ולקח אלעזר הכהן והזה, “Elazar the priest is to take from the blood and sprinkle;” at this stage it appeared as if the sprinkling of the blood was the most important part of the ritual, and required the deputy High Priest to perform it.

ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, “someone is to burn the red heifer in the presence of Elazar.” Elazar’s watching the procedure is equivalent to the Torah having written: “the deputy High Priest is to watch this procedure.”

את עורה, “its skin,” including the hair on the skin;

ואת בשרה, “and its flesh;” including its bones.

ואת דמה,”and its blood,” including its horns and claws.

על פרשה, “together with its entrails containing their dung.”We have a parallel to this kind of construction in Exodus12,9, where the Torah writes: ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, “its head, its legs and its entrails.”

אל תוך, “into the midst of the burning heifer.” The words אל תוך were used instead of the prefix letter ב. The Torah uses a similar construction both in Exodus 25,16, אל הארון, “into the ark,” instead of בארון, and in verse 17 in our chapter אל כלי, “into a vessel,” instead of בכלי.

וכבס בגדיו הכהן, “and he shall wash the priests’ clothing,” (in a ritual bath,) This refers to the same person who had thrown the parts of the slaughtered red heifer into the fire.

השורף אותה יכבס את בגדיו, “the person who had burned the red heifer is to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath;” (as well as his body). According to the plain meaning of the text, the people handling the red heifer did not have to immerse their clothing in a ritual bath prior to these activities, as at that point its purpose could not have appeared to onlookers as different from presenting other animal offerings, all of which require slaughtering of the animal in question and sprinkling its blood. The Torah described the final stages of this ritual before having completed describing the task of the man burning the red heifer, seeing this part of the ritual occurred prior to the completion of all the steps he was to perform.

ואסף איש טהור, “and a man who is ritually clean is to collect, etc.” According to the plain text I might have thought that seeing that the man who had burned the parts of the red heifer had already become ritually contaminated, that he was the one who should also now collect the ash of the red heifer. Why would another person have to do that and also become ritually contaminated in the process? The Torah therefore had to spell out that a man who had not become ritually contaminated had to perform that task.

והניח מחוץ למחנה, “and he is to deposit it outside the camp;” according to Rashi, that for the future this means that the High Priests will undergo their purification rites on Mount Olives, as part of that ash will be stored there. Future rituals involving the red heifer will also take place there, i.e. people who had become ritually contaminated by this ritual would also undergo their purification rites there.

וכבס האוסף, “and he that gathers the ashes shall wash his clothes (in a ritual bath);” according to the plain meaning of the text, the person gathering in the ash is required to do this, whereas the person depositing it outside the camp is not required to do this before aJi the stages of the ritual have been concluded. Seeing that it is physically impossible to collect the ashes in such a manner that none of is blown away by the wind, and contaminates the garments of the person handling it in the process, and the ash itself is holy, and it might end up in a ritually contaminated area, the person handling it will require immersing his clothing in a ritual bath earlier, similar to what the Torah described in connection with the sin offering in Leviticus 6,20: ואשר יזה ממנו מדמה על הבגד תכבס, “and anything he sprinkles from it (by mistake) on his garment you must immerse in a ritual bath in holy location” What was written there also applies to other kinds of animals whose bodies had to be burned for one reason or another, (because their meat was not consumed in time, etc.) and therefore it is clear that the same procedure is required here, even though it has not been specifically spelled out.

וכבס האוסף, “why did this detail have to be written here at all? If the person who only sprinkles blood with the hyssop contaminates his clothing when any of the blood touches his garments, and he therefore has to purify it in a ritual bath, is it not logical that the same rule applies to the person collecting the ash of the red heifer, who is far more likely to have had his clothing come into touch with some of that ash?” We would have to answer that we apply the rule that penalties can not be deduced by using logic unless they had been spelled out by the Torah. (Sifri). An alternate interpretation: The Torah teaches us here about the concept of tumat hesset, that though a ritually contaminated person may even involuntarily transfer such contamination by just moving objects by body movements without touching them with his hands. Although concerning other holy objects, once they have been reduced to ashes, their holiness has ceased, and the ash cannot confer impurity, in the case of the red heifer this is not so. This is in order to warn us not to come into contact with it, other than for its purpose to help a ritually contaminated person to regain purity when the procedures outlined in this chapter have been followed meticulously.

וכבס האוסף את בגדיו, “and the person who has collected this ash has to immerse his garments in a ritual bath.” If even his clothing has to undergo purification in a ritual bath, how much more so does his body have to undergo such a process! We also know this from the Torah having written: וטמא עד הערב, “he remains ritually impure until evening,” i.e. after having immersed himself in a ritual bath, (verse 19) where he is declared as ritually pure as a result of the sun having set. We find a parallel to this sequence in verse 19 where the stages are: “the ritually pure person will sprinkle water containing the ash of the red heifer on the ritually impure person, who will proceed to immerse his clothing in a ritual bath and wash with water, as a result of which he will regain his ritual purity in the evening.”

הנוגע במת, “if someone has been in physical contact with a corpse, etc.;” why does this have to be spelled out, when we have already been told that even being in an enclosed room sharing the same air space with the corpse, he has become contaminated? The answer to this question is the same as above when we stated that penalties in the Torah cannot be imposed as the result of our using our mental faculties, unless the Torah has spelled this out (Sifri).

הוא יתחטא בו, “the same person shall purify himself;” with this ash. If someone were to pose the question: what is the logic behind a red heifer on the one hand being the instrument for purifying the ritually impure, while at the same time conferring ritual impurity on its handlers?We could answer as follows: we find something similar in nature, where one and the same object performs two diametrically opposite functions. Fire, i.e. heat, melts metal, whereas the same fire when used to boil eggs makes the interior of these eggs get harder as time proceeds while it is in the pot. [We have not heard anyone criticising nature for performing such contradictory functions, so why criticise the Creator for legislating something parallel? Ed.] We find a similar phenomenon in medicine. A medicine which heals a sick person, makes a healthy person sick when he swallows it. Rashi in the Talmud, tractate Pessachim on folio 42 quotes such examples with cures for diarrhea. The cure, when taken by a healthy person, brings on that very ailment. Knowing this, we have no reason to question why the Creator saw fit to introduce such a concept into His Torah legislation. Furthermore, we find in books on natural science (hinted at in the Talmud tractate Beytzah folio 43), that if one places water into a vessel made of white glass, and exposes it to sunshine it will eventually burst into fire.

ואם לא יתחטא ביום השלשי, but if he does not purify himself on the third day, etc,” what is the reason for this clause after the Torah had already written that the ritual for purification involves sprinkling of the water containing the ash of the red heifer on him on the third and seventh day? I might have thought that if he had forgotten to undergo this procedure on the third day, he could perform it twice on the seventh day; the Torah decrees that this is not acceptable, as three days have to elapse between the first sprinkling and the second sprinkling.

עוד טומאתו בו, “his ritual impurity is still part of him.” He should not say to himself that seeing that if after seven days of counting this did not avail him anything to enter the sacred precincts around the Temple, at least it was good enough so that if he comes into contact with people, at least he will not transfer his ritual contamination to them; the Torah therefore states that having only performed part of the ritual is completely ineffective, he is as contaminated as previously.

זאת התורה, “this is the law;” what has been introduced at the beginning of this chapter is a statute of the Torah.

כל הבא אל האהל, “anyone who enters the tent (or house) in which there is a body of a human being, (and any item in the house at the time);” the reason that this has been spelled out is that you could have thought that ritual impurity originating in a dead body is transferred only through touching that body, but not through sharing the air under the same roof as that in which the body reposes. The novelty of this legislation is such that it needs to be spelled out. וכל אשר באהל, “and everything inside that tent (or house).” Why did this have to be written? if the Torah declared anyone entering such a tent as becoming ritually impure, i.e. before he had even entered with his whole body, it is understood that things inside that tent already and completely, will have the same status, no less. The answer is again that a penalty for something must be spelled out, and cannot be decreed merely by reasoning, however logical. Some commentators understand the line: כל הבא אל האהל, as including even living creatures other than human beings that are in that tent at the same time as the corpse is still there. The same would be true for chattels that had been in that tent while the corpse was still alive. (Source unknown)

וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה, “and anyone in an open field who touches, etc.;” seeing that it is under open skies, only actual touching of the body confers ritual impurity.

בחלל חרב, “regardless if death occurred as a result of the sword,” you should not say that the Torah had ruled only natural death as conferring ritual impurity on those touching the corpse, not unnatural death such as by violence of any kind, instruments designed to be used as weapons.

או בעצם אדם, “or by a human bone,” this verse teaches that in order to confer ritual impurity the corpse does not to be whole, even a bone suffices to confer such impurity (if a little flesh or skin is attached to it). The impurity this conferred on a person last a minimum of seven days even when all the rules of purification have been observed.

או בעצם אדם או בקבר, “or direct contact with the bone of a human being, or contact with a grave;” of all the types of ritual impurity the one caused by a human copse is the most severe. This is why the sages define a human corpse as אבי אבות הטומאה, ”the original forefather of all ritual impurities.” The reason appears to be that the Torah wishes to insure that living human beings not spend their time with the corpses out of their love for the departed, nor out of the mistaken belief that these corpses could reveal secrets of the afterlife to them, or that they would make idols of the skins of such corpses, seeing that the skins could be preserved indefinitely when turned into leather. Alternately, they would demean their parents by making utensils out of their skins or bones, the very reverse of revering them. Even if the motivation is simply to treat the dead with respect, the Torah prohibits this as not the way to mourn and show respect for one’s ancestors. [The Nazis have demonstrated how by making lampshades out of Jews’ skins, they had found dead Jews useful, whereas they had no use for living Jews. Ed.] Our sages in tractate yadayim, chapter 4, Mishnah 6, already forbade making carpets out of human skins, i.e. walking on the skins of their parents. They similarly forbade using one’s parents’ bones to convert them into spoons and similar utensils. All of this is forbidden even if intended to be proof of how beloved one’s parents had been by their children, so that they felt the need to keep part of them around to remind them of their having existed. This may be why the bones of donkeys are not ritually unclean and do not confer ritual contamination, while the bones of one’s parents are.

ועל הנגע בעצם, “and on someone who had touched the bones of the dead.” The letter ב in the word בעצם has the definitive vowel kametz, as it refers to the word עצם in verse 16, i.e. only human bones. This is also the reason why the vowel under the words בקבר, and במת have the definitive vowels patach in our verse. Each refers to a previously mentioned grave or corpse.

והזה הטהור על הטמא ביום השלישי וגו, “and the ritually pure person shall sprinkle on the ritually contaminated person on the third day, etc.: previously the Torah had spoken of people who had touched a whole corpse; here the Torah speak of people who had touched only parts of a corpse, such as a bone, or merely touched the grave.

ואיש אשר יטמא ולא יתחטא, “but the man that shall become ritually contaminated and does not take steps to purify himself, etc.;” the reason for this verse is unclear as the substance of it has already appeared in verse 13, where the Torah spoke of such a person having entered sacred areas around the Temple, and having become guilty of contaminating that area, and deserving punishment. The Torah wishes to make clear that we should not think that the penalty of which the Torah spoke in verse 13 applies only if such a ritually contaminated person entered sacred domains after having previously touched the dead, not if he had only been in the same covered airspace with the dead, when he would not be punished with extermination of his family; therefore the Torah repeats this legislation here. [Anyone who is not a priest is not obligated to cleanse himself from ritual impurity until he has to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the festivals, or unless for one reason or another he is obligated to offer a sacrifice. Ed.] We have now heard about the penalty for failing to purify oneself, where did we have the commandment to do so? We find it in Numbers 5,2: “anyone stricken with a serious degree of ritual impurity has to be sent outside the camp of the Israelites.” Who would like to remain ostracised?

כי את מקדש ה' טמא, for he has ritually contaminated G-d’s Temple.” He did so when entering its precincts while in a state of ritual impurity.” Why did the Torah in verse 13 speak of the person having contaminated the Tabernacle, and here it speaks of the person having contaminated the Temple? Are they not two sides of the same coin? If the Torah had only written this about the Tabernacle, I would have thought that the sanctity of the Tabernacle is greater, as it had been anointed with the oil of anointing. If the Torah had written this only about the Temple, I would have thought that the sanctity of the Temple was greater than that of the Tabernacle, as theTabernacle was designed only as a temporary structure. (Talmud tractate Shevuot, folio 16).

ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו, “and the person who sprinkles the waters containing the ash of the red heifer, called here מי הנה, “water designed to purify by removing the offending substance.” This verse has been abbreviated; its meaning is as follows: “the waters designed to remove the offending substance;” however, the person coming into contact with these waters must subsequently immerse himself in a ritual bath, as well as his clothing, and he remains in a state of ritual impurity until the evening of that day.

והנוגע במי הנדה יטמא, “anyone coming into contact with that water will become ritually unclean.” This is the answer to the deviationist cults among Jews who claim that the reason why the red heifer confers ritual impurity on all the people involved with it, is, because the whole ritual was performed outside the camp of the Jews. They claim that if people involved with it would not become ritually impure, we are afraid that anyone could henceforth claim a special status of superior sanctity for himself and take from the ash of the cow and sprinkle himself with this “holy” water, claiming that thereby they would achieve a higher degree of purity. To forestall such practices, the Torah decreed that everyone involved with the red heifer would become ritually unclean as an immediate result of this. (Compare B’chor shor) If you were to ask that if a mere sprinkling of the water caused ritual impurity, should not direct physical contact, touching it, do so even more so? So why did this have to be spelled out in our verse? The answer is again that penalties for incorrect behaviour must have been spelled out, and cannot be meted out when based only on our logic. I am not like many commentators who query the words of our sages, all of which are words of truth; [Our author is absolutely correct. [This editor has never come across a commentator whose work he has translated, in which some of these commentators have not only disagreed with the words of their colleagues usually of former years, so that these commentators could no longer defend their opinions, but they even questioned those commentators’ very legitimacy, and berated them. Ed.] Nonetheless, I cannot conceal that I am puzzled by a statement in the tractate פרה, chapter 3, mishnah 3, where we read that at the entrance to the עזרה, courtyard of the Temple, was set ready a pitcher of the ashes of the red heifer, a sin offering, and they brought a male from the sheep, and tied a rope between its horns and they tied at the end of the rope a stick with a pine cone and threw it into the pitcher, and the male was struck so that it fell over backwards, and he took it and sanctified it so that the ashes became visible above the waters in the pitcher to the onlookers. [The purpose of all this was to avoid the person handling the ashes to have to touch it personally and thus contract ritual impurity. Eliezer HaKalir composed a liturgical poem based on the text of this mishnah, recited in many synagogues in the morning prayer on the Shabbat on which this section of the Torah is especially read out of turn shortly before Passover. Ed.] According to our author that everyone involved in these procedures requires to have himself sprinkled in order to regain ritual purity, how can the last person in the chain regain it? By whom will he be sprinkled?[Rabbi Chavell in his annotations quotes the Talmud in Yuma folio 14 as answering this by saying that a minor who is not subject to becoming ritually impure was used to do this. Ed.]

וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא, “and whatsoever the ritually contaminated person touches will be unclean as a result.” Our verse speaks of people touching the person still in contact with the corpse. Seeing that the chain had not been broken, that person will also incur severe ritual contamination, i.e. requiring not just a ritual bath to cleanse himself, but the whole procedure, as if he himself had been in contact with the corpse.

והנפש הנוגעת, “and anyone touching a person who had become contaminated by contact with the corpse but was no longer touching same at that time, will confer a milder degree of ritual impurity on those touching him, who will only have to immerse themselves in a ritual bath and become automatically pure again in the evening.