:במדבר יט
פסוק ב: זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה' לֵאמֹר: דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָלָה עָלֶיהָ, עֹל. .... יג כָּל-הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת בְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר-יָמוּת וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא, אֶת-מִשְׁכַּן ה' טִמֵּא--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל: כִּי מֵי נִדָּה לֹא-זֹרַק עָלָיו, טָמֵא יִהְיֶה--עוֹד, טֻמְאָתוֹ בוֹ.
19:2 records that the cow is to be adumah, which is usually translated as red, but there are many shades to the color of red. If the Torah means a bright red, like the color of tomatoes, then having a cow with such a color would be rare. However, if the Torah means a reddish, brown color like bordo, then there are many types of cows who fit this qualification.
19:2 also records the word temimah, whole, after the word adumah, and that the cow cannot have a blemish and not have been worked. Does this word temimah modify the term cow, parah, or the term red, adumah in the verse? Rashi (on 19:2), following the Sifrei, writes that the word temimah modifies the word adumah, and then the Torah is requiring that the cow be completely red to the extent that even if there are two black hairs on the cow it cannot be used to purify the tamei person. The logic of this reading is that the phrase after the word temimah is “that the cow had no blemish,” and if the word temimah was referring to the cow, then it is claimed that the phrase “that the cow has no blemish” would be redundant. Hence, according to this approach, it must be that the word temimah means that the cow must be completely red. With this reading of 19:2, a red cow without even two black hairs, and presumably any other color, would be rare.
Rashi is following the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Bethyra in the Mishnah in Parah 2:5, but there are other opinions that the cows can have more than two non-red hairs and still be acceptable. For instance, the Mishnah quotes R. Akiva that even if there are four or five non-red hairs that are not together, then they can be plucked from the cow and the cow can be used for the purifying process. The Mishnah also quotes R. Eliezer that even if there were fifty non-red hairs, which are dispersed on the animal, then they can be plucked off the animal. A different Mishnah (Parah 2:2) notes that if the horns and hoofs of the cow are black, then they also can be cut off. These opinions recognize the difficulty to have a cow which is literally red all over, though these opinions only minimally reduce the rareness of the appearance of a red cow.
A different reading of 19:2 is that the word temimah does not refer to the color red but to the cow, that the cow has to be whole. With this understanding, the following phrase in the verse “that the cow has no blemish” is just coming to explain what is meant by the term temimah. The phrase “that the cow has no blemish” would not be viewed as being redundant but as being explanatory and Luzzatto (on 19:2) points out that a similar case with the word tamim and the phrase “that there is no blemish” occurs in Vayikra 22:21. The Torah Temimah (on 19:2) notes that in the Torah the word temimah refers to the state of the animal, and if the Torah meant for the cow to be completely red, then the Torah should have stated have used the word “all” or “completely” instead of the word temimah.
With this latter understanding of 19:2, one can understand that the parah adumah was not 100% red, but rather that it was mostly red (bordo). This would follow the general rule in halakhah that a majority is like everything, rubu kekulo. The question would then be how much of a majority? The Mishnah Parah (2:5) notes the possibility that some of the hairs on the cow might have different colors in different parts of the hair, and the Mishnah rules that that status of the hair as being red or another color would depend on what is more evident. The same rule could apply to the red cow that if it looks red (bordo), then it would qualify for the purifying process even if it was not completely red.
It is possible that such a view exists in the Mishnah. The Mishnah (Parah 3:7) discusses the case of what happens when a designated red cow would not be willing to go to the ceremony (a stubborn cow). The Mishnah states that one cannot take out a black cow or another red cow to walk with the first red cow because in the case of the two red cows, people might say that two red cows were killed. This idea that there could be two red cows living at the same time is difficult according to the understanding that the red cow had to be completely red since this was a such a rare occurrence. It is true that the Mishnah (Parah 3:5) states that in two people’s lives there were two red cows, but still this was only in their lifetime, while the case of Parah 3:7 is when the two red cows were living at the same exact time. I think that this possibility in the Mishnah to have two red cows alive at the same time shows that for some opinions (not all) the parah adumah did not have to be completely red.
Regardless of how one understands the Mishnah Parah 3:7, the two different ways to read 19:2 have several different implications. If one understands that the word temimah refers to the color red and that the cow has to be completely red, then the appearance of such cow would be very rare. This accords with the Mishnah (Parah 3:5), which records an argument about the number of parot adumot, red cows, that existed until the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash. R. Meir claims that from the time of Moshe to the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash there were only seven red cows, while the Chachamim, who did not discuss the period before Ezra (5th century BCE?) state that from Ezra to the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash there were seven red cows. This opinion would be seven red cows in around 500 years, while according to R. Meir there were seven reds cows in around 1400 years. Both opinions attest to the rarity of the red cow. (The Rambam, Laws of parah adumah, end of chapter three, combines the two opinions in the Mishnah to claim that there were in total nine red cows from the time of Moshe until the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash, and then he adds that there will be one more red cow by in the messianic age. I am not sure where the Rambam knew about the tenth parah adumah.) On the other hand, if the word temimah relates to the cow, then the cow could just be a cow that looks red, though not completely red, and then the red cow would not be such a rare case.
This difference is how rare was the red cow has other implications. If the cow is very rare, just once in a century, then there is a need to both limit the need for the ashes from the cow and to increase the supply of the ashes that come from the red cow. With regard to the need for the ashes, the simple reading of 19:13 (and Vayikra 15:31?) is that a person who comes into contact with a dead body must purify him or herself, and that a person cannot remain in a state of tumah. This creates a huge need for red cows, which could only be fulfilled if the red cow was only a majority red. However, if the red cow had to be completely red, and hence very rare, then there would not be enough red cows for people to be purifying themselves on a regular basis. Instead, the traditional understanding of 19:13 (see Rashi on 19:13) is that only the person entering the Bet ha-Mikdash needs to purify him/ herself, but everybody else can remain in a state of tumah.
With regard to the supply of ashes from the red cows, if one thinks that a red cow is such a rare event, then there is a need to increase the ashes through other means. One other mean could be to have a larger pyre to burn the red cow, as then the wood would give more ashes, but the pyre could not be that large since the high priest has to take the cow up to the pyre and come down after killing the cow on the pyre, Mishnah Parah 3:9. Another way to increase the ashes is by adding more water to the combination of water and ashes, that is to say diluting the combination of water and ashes. Yet, the Chachamim (Mishnah Parah 6:2) maintain that any ashes that have been mixed with some water cannot be mixed with other water.
Another difference between the two different understandings of 19:2 is more philosophical. Is the Torah to be understood in a miraculous manner or is the Torah to be understood a guide for people to live in a normal manner without relying on miracles. According to the idea that the red cow had to be completely red, then the Torah is making a law which is based on miracles, while if 19:2 is understood to mean that the cow could be mostly red (bordo), then the Torah was setting rules for people to live without having to rely on events that at best occurred once in a century. This blog, as indicated by its name, obviously follows the non-miraculous approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment