Musar for Parah 4:4

כָּל הָעֲסוּקִין בַּפָּרָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וּפוֹסְלִים אוֹתָהּ בִּמְלָאכָה. אֵרַע בָּהּ פְּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. אֵרַע בָּהּ בְּהַזָּיָתָהּ, כֹּל הָעוֹסֵק בָּהּ לִפְנֵי פְסוּלָהּ, מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. לְאַחַר פְּסוּלָהּ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. נִמְצְאָה חֻמְרָהּ, קֻלָּהּ. לְעוֹלָם מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ, וּמַרְבִּין לָהּ עֵצִים, וּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ בַיּוֹם, וּבְכֹהֵן, הַמְּלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ, עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר, וְהַמְּלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בַּמַּיִם, עַד שֶׁיַּטִּילוּ אֶת הָאֵפֶר:

Anyone involved with the heifer from its start to its end [from when it slaughtered to the collecting of the ashes], his clothing becomes impure and he invalidates her [the heifer] with [any other] work [he engages in during the ritual]. If an invalidation occurs with her slaughter, the clothing does not become impure. If it occurs with the sprinkling, the clothing of anyone involved with it before the invalidation becomes impure, and the clothing of those involved with it after the invalidation does not become impure. We find that the stringency provides a leniency [in that a stringency which invalidates acts as a leniency with respect to whether the clothing is made impure]. There is always <i>me'ilah</i> with it [me'ilah is the transgression of benefitting from sanctified property, see tracate Me'ilah for details], and one may add wood [to the pyre while its being burnt], and it [the ritual] is performed during the day and by a priest. [Other] work [done by the priest at the same time] invalidates it, until it is made into ashes. And [other] work [done at the same time] invalidates the water [which the ashes are mixed into] until the ashes are poured in.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

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?

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse