זאת חקת התורה . Why did the Torah need this introduction? This is adequately explained by Eliyahu Mizrachi. There are numerous occasions in the Torah when such an introduction is used, e.g. זאת חקת הפסח, in Exodus 12,43. Even though the law is not in the nature of גזרה היא מלפני, "it is a decree that I have decreed," seeing that the reasons for this legislation have been explained, the Torah's expression here is in a class by itself since we have both the expression חוק and תורה. Surely one of these words is unnecessary. Later, while still discussing the same subject matter, the Torah writes: זאת התורה, אדם כי ימות באהל "This is the Torah concerning a person who dies in a tent, etc." (19,14). At the beginning of our פרשה, it would also have sufficed to write only one of these expressions. In the example before us, the words “Torat,” or “Chukat,” mean that the Torah is about to reveal certain commandments to us. I believe that this question is answered adequately without the Mizrachi pointing out that we are faced here with what seems to be a repetition. We read in Exodus 12, 14: חקת עולם תחגהו, "you shall celebrate is as a statute forever." The Torah sometimes speaks of the Passover as חקת הפסח. This means the expression חק is also tied to certain time frames such as חקך וחק בניך, in Leviticus 10,13, where the consumption of certain sacrifices is discussed. In that instance the time this statute applies is limited. Similarly the statute of the Passover is severely limited in the time it applies. We find the expression חק, even when dealing with social laws, משפטים, such as in Exodus 18,16, where Moses tells his father-in-law that he explains the Torah's litigation laws to those who approach him with complaints. The word חק implies something fixed, whether in quantity or time.

Since there are so many difficulties in this whole legislation, there seems little point in listing another question. However, permission has been granted to try and understand to the extent that it is possible. Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan, whose words Rashi quotes, proves that Moses himself had said: "I wished to become wise, but it has remained far from me" i.e. והיא רחוקה ממני (Kohelet 7,23). It is interesting that he had not said: "I did not acquire wisdom, i.e. לא חכמתי." What is meant is that though study of that subject results in successively better appreciation of the many allusions contained in the text, the essential logic keeps eluding the scholar who delves into it. We read words similar to those quoted in the name of Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan by Rabbi Yitzchak in Bamidbar Rabbah 3, who concludes his commentary by saying that Solomon was satisfied that he had a thorough understanding of the entire Torah except for this portion. He quotes Solomon as saying that he had been studying and examining this portion without penetrating to its essence. This was in contrast to the rest of the Torah, which he felt he thoroughly understood. In view of what others have done, I too will make whatever little contribution I can to the better understanding of our פרשה.

A rather striking problem in the text is the description of the purifying waters as מד נדה, "waters of a menstruant," surely a very derogatory term in view of the purpose of these waters! And especially, since the Torah on occasion uses clumsy language in order to avoid describing something in derogatory terms (Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,2). It is also unusual that the Torah does not report that "Israel and Eleazar did so," as is the case after similar instructions in the Torah on other occasions. The expression in 19,14, זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל, is unusual, as is the statement of our sages that it teaches that "the words of Torah are fulfilled only on people who are prepared to kill themselves on its behalf" (Berachot 43). How does this comment apply in this connection? Defilement through contact with the dead is usually involuntary!

Rabbi Joshua of Sakinin in the name of Rabbi Levi in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,5, says that there are four laws in the Torah described as חק which Satan focuses on when he wants to undermine our faith. One is the law that although one must not marry a sister-in-law, the legislation of the levirate marriage contradicts that principle. Another is the legislation of כלאים, the mixing, cross-breeding or grafting of certain fabrics, animals or seeds. A third is the scapegoat that is killed on the Day of Atonement; the fourth is the legislation involving the use of the ashes of the red heifer in our portion. In connection with the prohibition of marrying a sister-in-law it is written ושמרתם את חקתי, Lev. 18,5. Nonetheless, this prohibition is set aside when one's brother had died without children. The exception to the law of לא תלבש שעטנז, in Deut. 22,11, not to wear a mixture of wool and linen, is the permission to override that principle when wearing such a mixture as part of a prayer-shawl, טלית. The exception to the principle of the ashes of the red heifer purifying a person, is that the clothing of the person or persons who actually are involved in the procedure of preparing these ashes becomes defiled even though in a state of ritual purity (19,8). The ash of the red heifer itself purifies impure clothing. There is, of course, a lot that can be queried about the whole procedure of the scapegoat. Why did Rabbi Joshua not mention other instances where the expression חק is used, without contradictory aspects to such acts of legislation?

Rashi tells us in Genesis 26,5, that the term חק is used in the Torah when the legislation is such that it offers Satan an opportunity to challenge its logic. He quotes the prohibition of eating pork as an additional example.

Another difficulty: If G–d has told us that these laws offer Satan an opportunity to challenge the logic of His laws, why did He not tell us how to answer Satan?

An even greater difficulty is that here the Midrash portrays the nations of the world, i.e. Satan, as challenging the חוקים, whereas in Deut. 4,6, the Torah itself describes these nations as extolling these very חוקים as the source of our wisdom and insight!

Yalkut Shimoni on our portion describes the פרה, heifer, as symbolizing Egypt, since Egypt is referred to as עגלה יפיפיה מצרים, "Egypt is a beautiful calf," in Jeremiah 46,20. He goes on to say that the word אדומה, red, refers to Babylonia which is described in Daniel 2,38, as "you are the head of gold." The word תמימה, symbolizes Media. Rabbi Chiyah bar Abba said that the kings of Media were תמימים, sincere. The only complaint G–d has against them is that they served idols, a practice they had learned from their forbears. The words אשר אין בה מום, "which is totally unblemished," refer to Greece. When Alexander the Great saw Shimon the Just he rose on his feet and praised the Lord of Shimon the Just. His palace attendants were incredulous that their king should accord this kind of honor to a Jew. Alexander told them that this man had appeared to him whenever he was about to enter battle, and was victorious. The words אשר לא עלה עליה עול, "which has never borne a yoke," refer to wicked Edom who had refused to accept the yoke of G–d. Not only had he not accepted it, but he had blasphemed by saying: "whom have I in the Heavens!" So far the Yalkut. Why does the Yalkut understand all these references as being to different nations? After all, they ridicule us, wish to cause us frustration!

There is also another Midrash which describes the heifer as symbolizing Israel, comparing Israel to a stubborn, defiant cow. Again, also the word אדומה is interpreted by that Midrash as referring to Israel who are redder than pearls. תמימה refers to Israel who are compared to יונתי תמתי, "My perfect turtle dove," in Song of Songs 6,9. The words אשר אין בה מום, "which is totally unblemished," are also a reference to Israel, since the verse quoted above describes that turtle dove. In this way the words אשר לא עלה עליה עול, "which has never accepted a yoke," are a reference to Israel during the period of Jeremiah, when Israel refused to accept the Yoke of Heaven. This Midrash is almost the reverse of the Yalkut! Besides, why does the Midrash continually repeat the words "this refers to Israel?"

In Bamidbar Rabbah at the beginning of our portion Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai is quoted as telling his students that it is not the dead body which imparts impurity, and not the waters which impart purity, but it is a decree by G–d that this should be so. We are not permitted to transgress G–d's decrees since the Torah states: "This is the statute of the Torah!" How could Rabbi Yochanan say that it is not the dead body which causes impurity when the Torah has said that it does!? The Torah has also said specifically that the "waters of menstruation cleanse!"

Generally speaking, the term גזרת המקום, a Heavenly Decree, is understood to mean something that cannot be explained rationally. This is also the way Maimonides explains this term in the Mishnah in Berachot 5,3, where we are told that if someone claims that the law of chasing away the mother-bird prior to taking its young (Deut. 22,6), is an expression of G–d's mercy on the birds, such a person must be stopped in his tracks, since we must not interpret G–d's laws as being based on human sensitivities. G–d's laws do not need a rationale in order for us to observe and cherish them. Maimonides was attacked for having made such a statement, as is well known. At any rate, if it is as Maimonides says, then all the commandments are merely decrees that need not be investigated as to their specific rationale! We have another Midrash which compares the legislation of the red heifer to a king who enters a country, and to whom his subjects say: "please impose some decrees upon us!" The king replies: "Once you accept me as your sovereign, I will begin to make decrees." Similarly G–d said to Israel: "Since you have accepted My sovereignty when I said: "I am the Lord your G–d, etc., now accept My decree not to have any other deities!"

What is meant is that the entire Torah, all its laws and their spiritual impact, are the very soul of Israel, as I have explained at length on numerous occasions. This enables us to explain the various Midrashim on the paragraph. We read in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,7, that when Moses ascended to heaven he heard the voice of G–d expounding the law of the red heifer, quoting: "My son Eliezer says that the heifer has to be two years old, (the expression פרה, cow, means a minimum age of two years), whereas when the Torah uses the term עגלה, calf, this refers to a one year old animal." When Moses heard this, he said: "how is it possible that You, O G–d who owns heaven and earth, are sitting expounding Your Torah and quoting a human being as proof that Torah has been interpreted correctly!" G–d answered that at some point in the future a righteous person would arise who would commence his discourse on this portion by citing these words and his name would be Rabbi Eliezer, etc." Moses thereupon expressed the wish that the person in question should be one of his descendants. G–d immediately told him that his wish had been granted. This is the meaning of Exodus 18,4: "and the name of the one was Eliezer," when describing Moses' other son. The name of this special "son" of whom the Torah writes "האחד" is the Rabbi Eliezer whom G–d had quoted. He is the one who discoursed on the law of the red heifer.

The reason all the מצות are called גזרות, "pieces," or "sections," is that they are like the souls, each one of which is a "section" of the Divine though separated from G–d Himself. Similarly then מצוות are like the egg laid by a hen that is about to be slaughtered for human consumption (compare Beitzah 2A). In other words, the commandments are an integral part of G–d though separated from Him. The word גזר is used in this way in Psalms 136,13: "Who divided the sea into pieces." We have the same meaning in Genesis 15,17, at the "covenant between the pieces, "where G–d (a pillar of fire) is described as passing between הגזרים, the pieces. We learn there what the כריתת הברית, making of the covenant between G–d and Abraham, G–d laying phylacteries, robing Himself in ציצית, studying Torah, etc., is all about. All these activities which our sages attribute to G–d are not merely symbolisms, but reflect the fact that we, our souls, are part of the Divine, and that what we are asked to do in this physical world is basically no different from what G–d does in the spiritual counterpart of our world. It is wrong to attribute the legislation of chasing away the mother-bird to considerations involving the welfare of the bird. What G–d wishes to teach us by means of the מצות, is something for our sake, something that makes it easier for us to operate on His "wavelength." We are to train ourselves to wear "His garments," to adopt His attributes. It is not surprising then that these גזרות are difficult to understand, and the same applies to the restrictive ordinances, גזרות, imposed by Rabbinic law which are designed to prevent our infringing Sinaitic law. We sometimes fail to see the rationale in some of these ordinances.

I will try to explain the whole subject which the Midrash calls חקה חקקתי, גזרה גזרתי, by means of a short introduction. A look at the totality of the commandments reveals that they are divided into four categories, as explained in the ספר יצירה. Kabbalistic literature in which the גלוי עולמות, the revelation of various worlds, is discussed bases this division on the verse כי הוא אמר ויהי (Psalms 33,9). The terms used are רשי"מו, חקי"קה, חצי"בה, שי"ה. First, there was the will, רצון, to create the universe, which is referred to in that verse as כי הוא אמר.

Next, G–d proceeded to the stage of ויהי. The creation of the original raw material, the אין or hiyuli in Greek. Next, came the transformation of this hiyuli into what we call יש, i.e. "something." Last, there occurred the transformation of one kind of יש, something, into a whole variety of יש. When we examine it more closely, we will find that the first two categories i.e. רשימו and חקיקה, are actually much like twin brothers in that they are both parts of a totally abstract, spiritual world. In order to be converted into a physical, pulsating world such as we inhabit and perceive, the energies of these abstract spiritual worlds were transformed through the insertion of a layer of what we call the עולם הגלגלים, the world of the planets. The מצות, too, are divided into four different "worlds." Some are of a totally rational, functional nature, which even the nations of the world are not only able but willing to perform. Examples are legislation against stealing, murdering, adultery, the duty of honoring father and mother and others. Similarly we find Gentile philosophers postulating ethical mores, virtues to be acquired, etc. The rationale underlying all those philosophies is known, available to all, in other words "revealed." Those מצות are the ones we consider as belonging to the category of עשיה. Secondly, we have the category of מצות that contain symbolisms though performance of specific deeds is commanded. They include such commandments as the Passover lamb legislation, the eating of unleavened bread, the eating of bitter herbs, the building of and dwelling in huts on the festival of Tabernacles, etc. These commandments fall under the heading חציבה. The third category are other commandments which we cannot understand in their entirety, or even their essence. These are the category called חקיקה דק מאד, "legislation of a spiritually very refined nature." Finally, there is the fourth category, the law of פרה אדומה, the meaning of which has not been revealed to any person while alive with the exception of Moses and Rabbi Akiva. This is what is known as רשימו. The latter must be described as דק היטב הדק, "something infinitely refined." Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chaninah in his commentary Bamidbar Rabbah 19,6, explains the words in 19,3: "they shall take to you an unblemished red heifer,” as meaning that G–d had said to Moses: "To you I shall reveal the deeper meaning of this law, whereas to others it shall remain a חק. He bases this on an interpretation by Rav Huna of Psalms 75,3: "At the time I choose, I will judge equitably." It is also written in Zechariah 14,6: "On that day there shall be neither sunlight nor cold moonlight." Since the prophet does not say קפאון, but וקפאון, and the spelling is יקפאון, this is an indication that matters which are concealed from you in this world will be revealed to you when the time arrives which the prophet discusses in that paragraph. This is in line with Isaiah 42,16: "I shall guide the blind by a road they did not know, and I will make them walk by paths they never knew." The same verse continues: "These are the things I have done [promised] and I will not forsake them." The remarkable thing is that the prophet, i.e. G–d, does not speak about אעשה, i.e. "I shall do," but he speaks about עשיתם, "I have done them." What is meant is that G–d had already done this for Rabbi Akiva and the likes of him. [revealed the mystery of the red heifer legislation]. Matters that I have not revealed to Moses, I have revealed to him, and he has seen everything that is precious to Me. So far Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina.

How can we reconcile all this with the Torah's statement in Deut. 34,10, that "there never arose another prophet in Israel such as Moses, with whom G–d communicated face to face?" Besides, this is in direct opposition to the explanation we have quoted on the word אליך, in 19,2,? We must certainly assume that Moses' intellectual capacity of comprehending the deeper meaning of the red heifer legislation exceeded that of any one after him. This is also the meaning of Bamidbar Rabbah 19,6, that "all the red heifers have been named after Moses; when all other red heifers are gone, the one Moses made will still remain." All that this means is that all the red heifers that have ever been made holy through being burned, etc., were able to perform the function assigned to them only because Moses had burned the golden calf and used its ashes, just as later generations used the ashes of the red heifer. What we must keep in mind is that the main concern when relating to all the commandments is to comprehend their meaning in their metaphysical significance, i.e. סוד, and there was certainly no one who knew and appreciated these meanings as Moses did. Now we understand why the "red heifer of Moses was the one that lent sanctity to all other red heifers."

In order to understand the apparently conflicting views expressed in the Midrash, we need to define the terms חק and גזרה, respectively. When we referred to the first stage of Creation, the one called רשימה, which was the domain of רצון of G–d to create a universe, we already explained that the spiritual part of the virtues is the soul, the input of G–d which illuminates the personality of the צדיק. It makes him aware of his G–d, as explained by the Zohar. The soul itself consists of two parts. The "upper" part concerns itself with perceiving the essence of G–d, whereas the "lower part" of the soul perceives other things, latches on to the צדיק. We use the term חק, to describe the "upper" part of the soul; it refers to the "truth," something unchangeable, as in חק ולא יעבור, "an unalterable and unchangeable statute" (Job 14,5). The "lower" part of the soul which perceives what is in the universe is called גזרה גזורה, "portions which have been separated, cut off," detached from G–d." Both these parts however, are part of the domain which we called רצון. When the Midrash quotes G–d as saying חקה חקקתי, this is a reference to the sparks of understanding that Moses received from the domain of חק. When the Midrash goes on to say in the name of G–d, גזרה גזרתי, this refers to the sparks of understanding which Rabbi Akiva received and which emanated from the domain of גזרה. Both emanated from the metaphysical domain that we have called רשימה. Since the domain of חק, is more remote than the domain of גזרה, it follows that something was revealed to Rabbi Akiva which was not revealed to Moses, though that something was no greater. The Midrash never said that something greater or additional had been revealed to Rabbi Akiva. All the Midrash meant to tell us was that Rabbi Akiva had a closer connection with the domain of גזרה, a domain specializing in גלוי, matters that are revealed, whereas Moses had a closer connection with the domain of חק, the domain of the נעלם, the domain of matters not given to revelation. In order to understand this, imagine an angel, who can certainly better understand a fellow angel than he can understand the workings of the human mind. Similarly a human being can better understand the workings of the mind of a fellow human being. The way a Moses relates to such phenomena as חק and גזרה respectively is therefore in exactly the reverse ratio to Rabbi Akiva relating to the same phenomena, and vice versa. For Rabbi Akiva as well as for Israel at large the legislation of the red heifer is in the class of a חק קבוע, something fixed, not to be touched or moved; we must not even speculate about matters in the domain of the נעלם, areas where our powers of perception are not operative, viz: במופלא ממך אל תדרוש "matters that are too difficult for you, do not investigate, etc." (Chagigah 13a). This does not mean, however, that it is forbidden to speculate on the reason why G–d has commanded us laws the meaning of which we do not understand. It relates only to our accepting the legislation.

Our sages have stated this best when interpreting Psalms 81,5: כי חק לישראל הוא, "it is a statute as far as Israel is concerned," but משפט לאלוקי יעקב, "it certainly makes sense to the G–d of Jacob." The word "'לאלוקי," in that verse is an allusion to Moses, whom we know as the איש האלוקים. The word "יעקב," in the same verse is an allusion to Rabbi Akiva who represents the best in Jacob.

The numerical values of the names משה, and the name עקיבא, when we ignore the zeros, i.e use the system of מספר קטן, are identical. We would write it thus: משה=300+40+5=12. עקיבא=70+100+10+2+1=12. When you use the regular system of arriving at numerical values, you will, of course, find that the name משה=345, adds up to more than the name עקיבא=183.

Let us return to the statement of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, that it is not the dead body that confers impurity. What he meant was that the impurity is not caused by the physical body that we come in contact with, but impurity is rooted in the very concept of death. The fact that the body is inhabited by Samael enables a body to become impure at some stage. The same is true of the purifying powers of waters sprinkled with the ash of the red heifer. Though, technically speaking, these waters remove impurity from the person they are sprinkled on, the reason why they have such power is something that is inscrutable for us, and is known only in those domains which are beyond our powers of investigation. It is true then that what confers purity is not the waters we see but their metaphysical dimension in the regions beyond our powers of perception. The Midrash imputed this to G–d when it said חקה חקקתי, this law must not be violated.

The Torah writes in Deut. 4,5: “ראה למדתי אתכם חקים ומשפטים,” "See I have taught you statutes and social laws, etc." G–d has taught us both the kind of laws the meaning of which it is given to us to perceive, and others whose meaning is not given to us to perceive. The reason why we have been taught laws the meaning of which we are able to understand, is so that we should be ready to accept on trust those laws which are beyond our understanding. Put differently: the very nature of גזרות, those laws detached from direct contact with the highest domain of רשימה, lead us to faith in the validity of חק. Now we will explain the 4 domains briefly referred to when we first introduced the Midrash on the meaning of the red heifer legislation. "Torah" is referred to in four different expressions, i.e. 1) תורת ה'; 2) תורת אלוקים, as we know from Nechemiah 8,8: ויקראו בספר בתורת האלוקים מפורש, ושום שכל, ויבינו במקרא, "They read from the book of the Lord's Torah, and explained it, putting their mind to it, and they understood the reading." 3) We find Torah referred to as תורת אמת; 4) We find Torah referred to as תורת האדם. These four expressions are in reality four nuances of what are basically two "Torahs." The first two are נסתרות, concealed matters, whereas the last two are נגלות, aspects of Torah whose meaning has been revealed. Each category has its subcategories. The first concealed "names" of Torah refer to the respective meanings of the Ineffable four-lettered Name of G–d, as well as to the meaning of the name אלוקים. The former contains the secret of ה' אחד ושמו אחד; as such it is applicable to the abstract spiritual world. The latter, on the other hand, which is equal in numerical value to the word הטבע, "nature," clearly describes G–d or Torah respectively being manifest in our physical world. In Exodus 18,11, we find that Yitro said עתה ידעתי כי גדול י-ה-ו-ה מכל האלוקים. He had realized that the dimension of G–d when He is called Yedud, (we will use this description when we mean the four-lettered Ineffable Name) is beyond the one when He manifests Himself as אלוקים. 2) We find in Exodus 9,16, that G–d told Moses that the purpose of the final three plagues was "למען ספר שמי," and the "name" referred to was Yedud. 3) G–d describes His name as Yedud in Exodus 6,3. In that instance, He makes it plain that this had been an aspect of Him that had not previously been revealed. 4) When the activities of Moses are described in the concluding verses of the Torah (Deut. 34,11), Moses is described as the messenger of the Yedud dimension of G–d. His function in performing the miracles referred to there had been to expand Israel's consciousness of G–d as the Master of טבע, i.e. the dimension of אלוקים, and to teach them that there are dimensions to G–d which are far beyond that realm. This aspect of G–d we have earlier referred to as רשימו.

The second name of Torah, i.e. תורת אלוקים, concerns know-ledge of matters abstract. It indicates that G–d made known His name to the intellectual elite of His people, the בני ישראל, through what is written in the Torah. This we have referred to above as חקיקה. When we read in Psalms 91,14, כי בי חשק ואפלטהו אשגבהו כי ידע שמי, "because he was devoted to Me I will deliver him; I will keep him safe, for he knows My Name;" this means that by one's special love for G–d one may bring about knowledge of His Name. We find that the vowels in the name י-ה-ו-ה, are the pattern cholam, sheva, kamatz. On occasion, especially in the Books of Prophets, this vowel pattern is ignored, and instead we read the name that is spelled ח-ה-ו-ה, as if it had been spelled אלוקים. This is a mystery which is part of the domain חקיקה. The numerical value of the name אלוקים, is 86. The numerical value of the Ineffable Name spelled with letters only is 26. When the Ineffable Name is spelled in word form instead of in letters, (something Kabbalists call miluim) the number is 45. The word would then have been spelled thus: יוד, הא, ואו, הא. The numerical values for each letter then would be 20,6,13,6, respectively. We observe that there are open and concealed meanings to the same term. Now to the "hidden" and "open" aspects of the last two names that we have for Torah, i.e. תורת אמת, and תורת האדם. The former is applied to those commandments whose meaning and value is evident to all. The latter refers to the intellectual, spiritual values of Torah.

The benedictions we recite before reading from the Torah also reflect these different aspects of Torah. The benedictions we recite prior to reading from the Torah refer to the first two dimensions of Torah. When we say in ונתן לנו את תורתו, we refer to the "hidden" aspect of that Torah; when we continue נותן התורה, we refer to the "revealed" part of that aspect of Torah. Here we thank G–d for having revealed to us mystical, hidden parts of the Torah. In the benedictions recited after having read from the Torah, the formula is a) תורת אמת, followed by b) חיי עולם. The message is that everything proceeds towards one single place, and finds its way back to the original נסתר, hidden spiritual domain. This is what is meant when the Psalmist in Psalm 19,8, says of Torah that תורת ידוד תמימה.

This is also what is alluded to in Deut. 4,5, ראה למדתי אתכם חקים ומשפטים, "see I have taught you statutes and social laws." The Torah compares the statutes to the social laws. The message is that just as there are easily appreci-ated reasons for the social legislation of Torah, so we must believe that the reasons underlying the חקים are equally good. They are not רק, empty, devoid of logic. On the contrary: if that is our impression, it proves that we are devoid of reason and good sense, are empty (compare Deut. 32,47). In the same verse, the משפטים, social laws are compared to the חקים, statutes, to make us appreciate that there are hidden meanings to these social laws which failed to meet the eye when we read them and thought we had understood their total meaning.

When Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi edited tractate Avot, the only tractate in the Mishnah that deals with ethical rather than halachic matters, he prefaced it with the words משה קבל תורה מסיני, that "Moses received the Torah on Mount Sinai." At first glance this sounds like an insult to our intelligence. Every pupil in any Jewish elementary school is aware of that. Rabbi Yehudah, however, did so because the Jewish people are not the only people who possess a book of ethics. Aristotle's book of ethics was well known, presumably also in the land of Israel long before the tractate Avot was completed. Rabbi Yehudah wanted to remind us that it is their origin which distinguishes our ethics from the "ethics" of the Gentiles. Our ethics are not man-made. They originate in Sinai, and therefore the meaning of these teachings is not exhausted by what is written down, but there are also hidden aspects to it, aspects which directly link us to a higher domain of spiritual regions. The Talmud does not tire of reminding us that human attributes cannot serve as a yardstick in our efforts to understand G–d. On the contrary, because His attributes are different, we have to learn from what He has revealed about His attributes when we attempt to become model human beings. All this is what Rabbi Yehudah wants to remind us of when he tells us that everything in Torah, including מדות, is of Sinaitic origin, is Divine. Now we understand that every accomplishment, be it material or spiritual, if it originates with man, is called חיי שעה, a transient value, just like a transient life, whereas every accomplishment which originates in Torah is called חיי עולם, an enduring value, eternal life. Hence in the benediction we recite after having read from the Torah we thank G–d for having implanted in us חיי עולם. When we conclude the benediction with the words ברוך אתה ידוד נותן התורה, we include both the hidden and the revealed aspects of the commandments and ethical lessons in Torah.

If Rabbi Yehudah chose "Moses received the Torah," as his introductory words to that tractate, he wanted to emphasize that it was the humility of a Moses that enabled him to "receive" the Torah in all its aspects. G–d's example of humility had inspired Moses to model himself after that example. This is the major challenge of ethics as we understand it. What Moses "received," is what our sages call אספקלריא מאירה, "a clear, unblurred vision." We have it on good authority that the attributes of Rabbi Akiva were essentially the same as those of Moses. In Gittin 67a Rabbi Shimon tells his students: "study my מדות, attributes, for my attributes are a tiny fraction of the attributes of Rabbi Akiva." [Clearly, even if we accept Rashi who explains the word מדות there to mean תורה, it is clear that Rabbi Akiva is held up as the ultimate model to follow. Ed.]

Seeing that there are six facets to earth i.e. the four compass directions, East, North, West and South, as well as what is above or below us, the author now interprets Psalm 19, 8-10, as dividing Torah into six facets corresponding to the six directions.

"תורת השם תמימה", "G–d's Torah is perfect," refers to the aspect of Torah we have previously called רשימו, a category of נשמה, actually "the soul of souls." This "soul" is absent in our lives, since we have explained that our souls are souls which have parted [temporarily] from the original all-embracing soul. Only in the future, will Torah be able to become manifest in that degree of perfection, תמימות. An example of the "perfection" that is lacking in Torah while we are here on earth is the תמימה aspect of the red heifer that the Torah prescribes, but that we cannot comply with because of the exalted and mystical nature of that legislation. Once that stage is reached, the משפטי ה' צדקו יחדו level, also the most profound aspects of the social legislation of Torah will become known, and we shall have attained that spiritual niveau. It sounds strange that Torah should have been presented in a sequence which requires much of it to be restudied as we reach higher intellectual and spiritual levels. When we examine Torah legislation there actually is no such thing as "earlier" and "later" in terms of time. We must not make the mistake of thinking that certain parts of Torah should have preceded other parts. In the highest realms, the hidden mystical domains, there is no such thing as "time," i.e. "before" and "after." Everything is צדקו יחדו.

Torah is perfect, the question is only when this perfection will be revealed to us all. Concerning that question, the Psalmist says משיבת נפש, when the soul has reached the stage where even in this world it can be called נשמה, rather than merely נפש. This will occur once this soul returns to the domain it has been "hewn" from, the domain we had earlier called חציבה. There were two human beings, Moses and Rabbi Akiva respectively, who happily had an understanding and personal experience of these eventual developments, these goals of the future, even while they still lived on this earth. They are the עדים, witnesses that there are indeed hidden meanings to Torah laws. This is what the Psalmist refers to when he says in the second half of verse eight, "עדות השם נאמנה מחכימת פתי," that there is testimony that G–d makes the simpletons wise. Moses, of whom it is said בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, "he is trusted in all parts of My house" (Numbers 12,7), is such "testimony." When Rabbi Akiva entered the פרדס, the spiritual and mystical domain of סוד, and emerged unharmed, as opposed to his three colleagues, he too had to face the opposition of the ministering angels who are residents of that region, just as Moses faced opposition of the angels when he came to take the Torah from the Heavens (compare Chagigah 14b). They wanted to deny him these spiritual visions by either harming him physically, or causing him to become insane. G–d came to his rescue. This is what the Psalmist had described as מחכימת פתי, when referring to the part of Torah called תורת אלוקים.

When the Psalmist goes on to say פקודי ה' ישרים, משמחי לב, this is in the same spirit as ולבי ראה הרבה חכמה, "and my heart has seen much wisdom," in Kohelet 1,16. The great spiritual visions of a prophetic nature are usually the result of feelings of joy. The expression "פקודי" used by the Psalmist alludes to a מפקד, supervisor, suggesting that G–d has appointed a פקיד, clerk, to make direct access to Torah difficult.

The next half of verse 9, מצות ה' ברה, refers to the third aspect of Torah, those commandments the meanings of which are revealed. The words מאירת עינים allude to the fourth aspect of Torah, the one that recommends itself even to the Gentiles. This is the meaning of מאירת עינים. The verse יראת ה' טהורה, עומדת לעד, alludes to Moses having received the Torah from Sinai, since it is followed by the words עומדת לעד, that it endures forever, something we have previously described as חיי עולם, eternal life.

Regarding the second half of this verse, משפטי ה' אמת צדקו יחדו, we refer the reader to the Alshich's comment on Parshat Mishpatim in which he explains that even if different judgments in various litigations are correct individually, collectively they may still be wrong. Example: If you ask a Gentile what is the penalty for murder, he will tell you that it is execution of the murderer. This is the correct answer. If you now ask another Gentile what is the penalty for stealing, he will tell you that it is death, giving a number of reasons why this should be so. If you ask the same Gentile what is the penalty for stealing and murdering, he will realize that it is an insult to our intelligence to decree the same punishment for theft as for murder. Our Torah legislation however, draws a distinction between its punishment of a murderer and that of a thief, the latter only having to pay twice the value of what he has stolen. In either case the criminal is deprived of what he has robbed his victim of (compare this Editor's translation of Torat Moshe by the Alshich, page 376).

Let us now return to the four aspects of Torah which address themselves to four categories of the Jewish people. These are known as 1) עם, 2) קהל, 3) עדה, and 4) קהל השם. The first category which shares a certain level of intelligence includes the ערב רב, the mixed multitude of nations that became fellow travelers when the Jewish people left Egypt. By joining the Jewish people, they acquired a degree of holiness over and beyond their original intellectual capacity. The category of קהל is spiritually superior to that of עם. Our sages say that a community of proselytes, קהל גרים, is called a קהל, meaning that they are capable of understanding the commandments and their reasons (Yevamot 57a). עדה is a level superior to קהל, a level of people who are able to understand the meaning of His Holy Name, קהל ה', finally, is a reference to people whose soul is of such a level that it can re-unite with the original soul from which it had been parted.

When we look at what happened at מי מריבה, "the waters of strife," in the passage beginning in Numbers 20,7 we are faced with many difficulties, and there are many commentators offering all kinds of reasons. Rabbi Yitzchak Abravanel alone cites ten different explanations offered on this strange passage. Later commentators have added their own comments. I shall add my own comments also, seeing that anyone has the right to claim the "crown" of Torah. I have heard a beautiful commentary on this passage in the name of Rabbi Moshe Isserless, better known as the famous Rema, commentator on the שלחן ערוך. I will quote it and add a personal thought. This will answer why the names עם and בני ישראל are used in that passage in what appears to be a haphazard fashion. It will also explain why Moses called the people מורים, "rebellious," in conjunction with my explanation of the nature of Moses' and Aaron's sin. If we were to follow Maimonides in his commentary שמונה פרקים, we would have to say that Moses' only error was that he called the people מורים. I hope to prove that Moses did not commit an error by calling the people מורים.

I have already published on that subject when explaining Deut. 34,11, which describes all the wonders and miracles that Moses performed as remaining forever unparalleled, that Moses' great מעלה, merit, was that the miracles he performed were under the aegis of the Ineffable Name of G–d, and that therefore the people at large were not able to recognize this as they had not attained that spiritual level. Only the elite of the people would be able to perceive the spiritual domain from which the miracles performed by Moses had originated. Such miracles were to be performed only for the eyes of a holy nation that were true servants of the Lord, not before the eyes of those who denied His powers and were not firmly attached to G–d. On this occasion an עדה שלימה who had access to the level of Torah that we had described as תורת ידוד תמימה congregated with others of the caliber קהל ה' and the Torah thereupon refers to both groups jointly as בני ישראל. The Torah commences its report in 20,3, with the words: וירב העם, "The people quarreled with Moses, saying if only we had died in the desert with our brothers in the presence of G–d." In other words, the lowest group of people, the ones who had originally been fellow travelers, started the quarrel. They continued: "Why did you bring the congregation of G–d to this desert that we might die there, both we and our beasts?" They tried to gain support, by making it appear that their main concern was the קהל ה', the spiritual elite of the nation. They accused Moses and Aaron of indifference to the fate of the spiritual elite of the Jewish people. By reading the next verse as a continuation of verse 5, we see their true meaning: "Moses and Aaron came to the entrance of the tent of meeting on account of the קהל," meaning that Moses interceded even on account of the קהל. At this point, G–d commanded Moses and Aaron to assemble the עדה, i.e. a level of people lower than the קהל ידוד, the spiritual elite, and of course also the קהל ידוד, who were on a higher spiritual niveau than the עדה, as pointed out earlier, and who were certainly worthy to witness the miracle about to be performed. It would appear that the sin of Moses and Aaron was that they had approached G–d even for the sake of the קהל, the group inferior to the עדה, (who had felt the lack of water as described in verse 2). Moses did not sin then by calling the people מורים. The only people whom he called מורים, were descendants of Gentiles, not the descendants of Abraham. It certainly was not sinful to call people who regressed to their spiritual level prior to their conversion "rebellious." When punishing Moses and Aaron, G–d says in 20,12: לא תביאו את הקהל הזה אל הארץ, "Because you did not keep faith with Me, you will not lead this congregation to the land." This means that Moses was not going to be worthy to lead the category of קהל to the Holy land, much less the spiritually higher categories of the people such as עדה. Moses was no longer considered fit to lead even the קהל, a spiritually inferior group of people, who, though they would live in the Holy Land, would not receive a hereditary share therein. Moses and Aaron would accordingly no longer be considered suitable to lead the עדה and קהל ידוד sections of the people. The words אשר נתתי להם, "to whom I have given the land," refer to these upper echelons of the people. This creates the impression that the majority of the people qualified as בני ישראל rather than as goy or קהל. On the other hand, and from various other occasions, we are entitled to conclude that the עם were the most numerous section of the nation. I have explained elsewhere the meaning of the statement attributed to Rav Huna that a person is remarkably insensitive to the help he receives from G–d. Saul was considered personally more pious than David, as we know from the statement by G–d that "if you had been Saul, and he had been David, I would have killed many Davids on his account."

We are dealing with a Divine decree that was issued already prior to this incident, but the execution of which had been delayed pending certain actions by the human beings to whom it was to apply. The decree concerned the coming into being of the kingdom of David and all that this entailed. A single error of Saul sufficed to trigger its execution, whereas on the other hand when David committed several sins, this did not have fatal consequences for his dynasty (compare the discussion in Yuma 22b). What occurred here, was of a similar nature. G–d told Moses already in Exodus 6,1, after the latter had complained that his mission had resulted in additional hardships for the people he had been sent to liberate, עתה תראה, now you will see!" Sanhedrin 111, comments on this that it had already then been decreed that Moses would not lead the Jewish people into the Holy Land, that he would only experience the deliverance of the people from Egypt. A similar decree existed due to the conduct of the people, i.e. that that generation also would not see the Holy Land. This was because they did not deserve all the miracles that would be performed for them at the time of their entering the Holy Land. Had Moses led them then, the miracles he would have performed would have outclassed those performed when Joshua defeated the thirty-one kings, and the people simply would not have deserved such miracles. The Ralbag explains all this in connection with Joshua, 1,2, when G–d told Joshua: "My servant Moses has died, and now arise and cross this river Jordan!"

In view of this we can also understand Deut. 1,37, when Moses said: "G–d was also angry with me on your account." Moses employs the expression בי, against me. We find the same expression here when G–d said to him יען כי לא האמנתם בי להקדישני, "because you did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me" (20,12). In Deut. 1,32, however, the wording is ובדבר הזה אינכם מאמינים. The true significance is as I have explained, that a decree already existed, but the actions needed to trigger this decree had not yet occurred. Because of a previous sin Moses had committed, G–d had already become angry at Moses on account of Israel. Now this anger, i.e. decree, became translated into effective reality. This is the reason why the Torah stresses המה מי מריבה אשר רבו בני ישראל, "these are the very same waters of strife the children of Israel quarreled (already previously)." If it were not so, the expression המה, would be uncalled for. Now the various commentaries that have been offered on this passage.

The four categories רשימו, חקיקה, חציבה, עשיה, discussed previously also represent four levels of perceptive capacity by various sections of the Jewish people. The perceptive powers of Moses towered above the four levels granted to the different groups of Israelites. The four are actually two, each with a sub-category. Different perceptive powers operated at different times, such as the time when the first Temple had been built, when it was destroyed, when the second Temple was completed, and when the second Temple was destroyed. Corresponding to these various epochs we have prophecy of the first level, prophecy of the second level, "Holy Spirit," i.e. רוח הקודש, and finally a lesser degree of holy spirit which we will call סוף רוח הקודש. The first two categories are in the domain that we have referred to as נעלמות," concealed," the latter two are in the domain that we have called נגלות, "revealed. As long as the first Temple was functioning the prophecy that existed was rooted in the domain of רשימו, in the nature of "sparks" dating back to what Moses had imparted. At the time of the Babylonian exile this kind of prophecy came to an end. There was no more direct drawing on the domain of רשימו.

Maimonides writes in chapter 45, section 2, of his Moreh Nevuchim that Daniel was not a prophet, this appears confirmed in the Talmud Megillah 3a on the verse in Daniel 10,7: "and I Daniel alone saw the vision; the people that were with me did not see the vision. However, a great fear befell them." In answer to the question who Daniel's companions were the Talmud says that they were the prophets Chagai, Zecharyah and Malachi. The Talmud adds that in some respects Daniel was greater than those prophets, whereas in other respects they were superior to him. Their superiority consisted in the fact that they were prophets, whereas he was not. On the other hand, he was superior in having had the vision, whereas they did not.

Abravanel disagrees with this contention of Maimonides in the beginning of his work Ma'ayeney HaYeshuah, citing Seder Olam, an ancient history book, which includes Daniel in the list of prophets enumerated. Besides, he reasons "how is it possible to exclude Daniel when we consider the numerous and profound prophecies recorded by him?" He feels that, on the contrary, this is proof of his standing, seeing that his companions did not see any of these visions! He says that when the Talmud calls the companions "prophets," this only means they had been instructed by G–d to transmit certain messages to the Jewish people. The word נביא, "prophet," has its root in the Hebrew expression ניב שפתים, "heartening, comforting words" (Isaiah 57,19). When Aaron is described as Moses' prophet, ואהרון אחיך יהיה נביאך, "and your brother Aaron will be your prophet," the point made is that he will be Moses' mouthpiece (Exodus 7,1). Although Daniel had achieved superior status, he had not been instructed to impart these messages to Israel; this is why the Talmud does not refer to him as a prophet. Should you ask why he was not chosen to convey these messages to the Jewish people, the answer is that the three prophets mentioned returned to the Holy Land with the Israelites who went to settle there again and to build the second Temple. There was a need therefore, to become G–d's messengers, which was not the case with Daniel who did not make עליה. The Torah reports in Genesis 15,1, והנה דבר ה' אל אברהם במחזה לאמור, "here the word of G–d came to Abraham in a vision to say, etc." The meaning seems to be that Abraham was on the level of prophecy. If nonetheless he is not numbered among the prophets, this is only because G–d had not sent him with a message to His people. This is the approach of the Abravanel to our problem. It is my personal view that both Maimonides and Abravanel are on the right track, אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים. Daniel was indeed a prophet, but he belonged to the category that we previously described as סוף נבואה. This was still part of the domain of רשימו.

The second period: During the period of the Persian and Median empires, the lifetime of Mordechai, the redemption under the aegis of the domain חקיקה commenced. The period is characterised by רוח הקודש, holy spirit which is rooted in that domain, just as Moses' prophecy was rooted in the domain רשימו. That this indeed is so, is alluded to in Midrash Rabbah on Mordechai and Esther, which describes the Holy Spirit available at that time as "below," compared to the Holy Spirit avaiable at the time of Moses which is called "above." The Midrash expresses this in connection with Esther 9,27: קימו וקבלו היהודים עליהם ועל זרעם, "The Jews confirmed and undertook upon themselves and their future generations to observe the days of Purim, etc." The Midrash interprets the words קימו וקבלו to mean "they preserved above what they had accepted below." How do we know that Mordechai himself possessed רוח הקודש? Our sages said that the whole Book of Esther was composed under the influence of the Holy Spirit. (Megillah 7a).

The third period, the one we described as commencing with the establishment of the second Temple, commenced with Shimon Hatzaddik, and continued during the entire period of the reign of the Greeks, and is called the domain of חציבה. Shimon Hatzaddik himself is described in Avot 1,2, as משירי אנשי כנסת הגדולה, "as a member of the remnants of the men of the Great Assembly, the period during which the last of the Books of the Bible were edited. The Holy Spirit that was available during those years continued to decrease until the destruction of the second Temple.

The fourth period, the one we have termed עשיה, commenced with the exile of Edom (Roman exile), when the only communications from Celestial Regions were what the Talmud refers to as בת קול, heavenly echoes. Such communications emanate from the domain עשיה. This period lasted until the conclusion of the Talmud. Henceforth the only source of our illumination would be the Torah itself, i.e. what we attain by studying it. We can now understand the comments of the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 5a concerning the role of the red heifer in purification rites required after incurring impurity through contact with a dead body. Rabbi Yossi says there that the only reason the Jewish people received the Torah was to overcome the sovereignty of the angel of death, of other nations or tongues. We know this from Psalms 82,6/7: אמרתי אלוקים אתם ובני עליון כולכם, אכן כאדם תמותו וכאחד השרים תפולו, "I had considered you divine beings, sons of the Most High, all of you; but you shall die as men do, fall like any prince."

When Israel was freed from the dominance of the angel of death while it received the Torah at Mount Sinai, and lost this freedom due to the sin of the golden calf, the angel Mattatarmolin with the face of an ox took up position on Israel's left, and Satan and the nations of the world started counting the people. Once the sin had been redressed by means of, amongst other things, the ashes of the red heifer, Torah was restored to being perfect, i.e תורת ידוד תמימה, so that even the מלאך רע יענה אמן, the angel that normally negates, portends evil, had to approve of Israel's rehabilitation. When this condition does not exist our situation is reversed and all our adversaries are waiting in the wings to applaud our downfall. In the introduction of Midrash Rabbah on Eichah, we find the comment on Daniel 8,12, וצבא תנתן על התמיד בפשע, "and a set time (army) will be allotted to the daily sacrifice because of sin." צבא means Malchiyut, i.e. dominance by other nations. We know this from Isaiah 24,21, יפקוד ה' על צבא המרום במרום "In that day the Lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven and the kings of earth on earth." The תמיד we referred to in Daniel, is a reference to Israel, since it is written והגית בו יומם ולילה, “occupy yourself with it by day and by night,” i.e. תמיד, constantly (Joshua 1,8). The word בפשע refers to the sin of neglecting Torah. Any time Israel throws Torah to the ground, other nations will prevail over us, since it says ותשלך אמת ארצה "when it throws truth to the ground." We know that אמת, truth, is a reference to Torah: אמת קנה ואל תמכור, "buy the truth, never sell it!" (Proverbs 23,23). If you throw words of Torah to the ground other nations will immediately prevail against you. Confirmation of this is found in Daniel 8,12, ועשתה והצליחה, "it will act and succeed." Since Gentiles do not have Torah, the verse must refer to the Gentiles prevailing over Israel.

On the other hand we have the assurance by Midrash Rabbah (end of Parshat Shemini, section 13), that Torah will never be completely forgotten by Israel, while the Midrash understands the words in Leviticus 11,4, את הגמל "and the camel," as a reference to the exile in Babylonia. The camel is described there as מעלה גרה, (normally translated as chewing the cud) which is a reference to the distinction Daniel would achieve in that kingdom. It is based on Daniel 2,49, that "Daniel was at the king's gate” (was his confidant). The Midrash continues in this vein, interpreting the words in Levit. 11,4 את השפן, as applying to the exile under the Medes, when Mordechai rose to grandeur. Similarly the word ארנבת, is understood as referring to the rule of the Greeks, when Alexander displayed great respect for the Jewish sages. The Torah repeated in the case of all the foregoing: כי מעלה גרה הוא, which is lacking when the Torah describes the pig, hence the Midrash sees in the pig a reference to the exile under the Romans, who not only did not elevate Torah scholars to high positions, but killed them. This is confirmed by the verse in Isaiah 47,6: "I was angry at My people, I defiled My heritage (נחלתי); I put them into your hands (Romans) but you showed them no mercy." According to the Midrash the word נחלתי, refers to Rabbi Akiva and his companions.

This Midrash has much in common with our Midrash. פרה, the red heifer, symbolizes Egypt, where Moses towers above all other prophets. אדומה, red, refers to Babylonia where Daniel rose to eminence, תמימה, refers to Media, where Mordechai rose to become Prime Minister, אין בה מום, refers to the period of Greek domination, when Shimon Hatzadik was so highly regarded by Alexander. לא עלה עליה עול, is an allusion to the Midrash in which we had quoted Rabbi Joshua of Sakinin say that Torah's words can be fulfilled only on people who are prepared to kill themselves for it (Berachot 43). In other words, he who refuses to accept the yoke of Heaven will be worn down by the yoke of דרך ארץ, bureaucracy, civilization's demands.

Rabbi Joshua of Sakinin had cited four laws as the focus of Satan and the Gentiles when pointing out inconsistencies in Torah legislation. Our Midrash, describing certain inconsistencies of the treatment by the Gentiles of a defeated humbled Jewish nation in exile, is the answer to these comments by Satan.

There is an illuminating comment by the Maharam from Padua, on the Sefer Hamada of Maimonides, commenting on the miracle by which the world was created and how strange (contradictory) it is that certain stars are sources of light, while others only reflect light, having none of their own to give. Some stars race around the universe, others travel at a leisurely pace. Some natural phenomena exude heat, others cold. All these phenomena are examples of contradictions. Nonetheless they are all part of the same universe. What is so strange then if the Torah contains some laws that appear contradictory? On the contrary, nothing could be a greater proof of the Divine authenticity of Torah than these so called contradictions. Had Torah been man made legislation, surely it would have reflected the lawgiver's "consistency!" Surely, when G–d created nature, He did so with intelligence! This then must be our answer when confronted by the Gentiles who claim that the Torah's commandments are devoid of reason, only intended to assert G–d's authority over His creatures. Our answer to such accusations must be that this would be a very poor way for G–d to win adherents to His law. Surely, if He had only wanted to secure our obedience, He would have legislated only laws that we could comprehend, and which by their logic would make us accept Him as our supreme authority! The only reason then that He legislated such apparently illogical laws must be that they are good for us, though we do not realize it, a condition due to the limitation of our perceptive faculties!

Once we follow this approach the verses in Deuteronomy which appeared strange, begin to make sense. Moses first said: "See I have given you חקים and משפטים, i.e. statutes devoid of rationale as well as laws that commend themselves to your reason." Immediately afterwards The Torah quotes the Gentiles as basing their assessment of the Jewish people as a wise and intelligent people on the fact that we perform all these commandments faithfully (compare Deut. 4,5/6). Their argument is that surely just as there are good reasons for the משפטים which have been revealed, there must be equally good reasons for the חקים which He has not seen fit to reveal. These חקים emanate in the domain רשימו. The meaning of the word רק in the verse רק עם חכם ונבון הגוי הגדול הזה, "this nation is a great and intelligent people," then is ריק, empty, i.e. "these commandments cannot be empty, devoid of intellectual content." As long as the people of Israel hold on to Torah and perform its commandments it is complimented by the nations of the world. This is what the Midrash alluded to when it said cryptically, פרה=ישראל, אדומה=ישראל, תמימה=ישראל, אשר לא עלה עליה עול=ישראל. This means that Israel is superior to the nations of the world in four respects, hence the grudging respect of Satan and the rest of the world. If we fail to demonstrate our superiority by heeding those four areas from which Torah values are transmitted to us, we would – G–d forbid! – become victims of the four kingdoms that rule over us in the four exiles. The degree of mystery surrounding these four examples of Torah legislation that Satan and the nations had quoted, varies. The red heifer legislation is the most mystifying, since its true reason is available only to those who have access to the domain of רשימו. The scapegoat on the Day of Atonement is a little less mystifying, as explained in the Zohar, in its commentary on the words איש עתי, Leviticus 16,21. The true reason for that legislation is reserved for those who have access to the domain of חקיקה. The domain חציבה holds the mystery of the levirate marriage legislation, whereas the domain of עשיה contains the answer to the mystery of the כלאים legislation. We have shown why this Parshah in pointing to the mystical domain of רשימו is really the root of all Torah legislation.