Za'atar, Plant of the People

The uncleanness through leprosy we have already explained. Our Sages have also clearly stated the meaning thereof. All agree that leprosy is a punishment for slander. The disease begins in the walls of the houses (Lev. 14:33, seq.). If the sinner repents, the object is attained: if he remains in his disobedience, the disease affects his bed and house furniture: if he still continues to sin, the leprosy attacks his own garments, and then his body. This is a miracle received in our nation by tradition, in the same manner as the effect of the trial of a faithless wife (Num. v. ii, seq.). The good effect of this belief is evident. Leprosy is besides a contagious disease, and people almost naturally abhor it, and keep away from it. The purification was effected by cedar-wood, hyssop, scarlet thread, and two birds (Lev. 14:4); their reason is stated in various Midrashic sayings, but the explanation does not agree with our theory. I do not know at present the reason of any of these things; nor why cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet were used in the sacrifice of the red heifer (Num. 19:6); nor why a bundle of hyssop was commanded for the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover-lamb (Exod. 12:22). I cannot find any principle upon which to found an explanation why these particular things have been chosen.

AND CEDAR-WOOD…AND HYSSOP. These are the biggest and smallest among the plants. This is proven by Scripture’s description of Solomon’s wisdom. There is no reason to search for the meaning of the word ezov (hyssop), for it is known by tradition. Note, the leper and the plagued house and uncleanness caused by a corpse are similar. They are also similar to the Egyptian Passover.

(1) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: (2) This shall be the ritual for a leper at the time that he is to be cleansed. When it has been reported to the priest, (3) the priest shall go outside the camp. If the priest sees that the leper has been healed of his scaly affection, (4) the priest shall order two live clean birds, cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop to be brought for him who is to be cleansed. (5) The priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered over fresh water in an earthen vessel; (6) and he shall take the live bird, along with the cedar wood, the crimson stuff, and the hyssop, and dip them together with the live bird in the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the fresh water. (7) He shall then sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the eruption and cleanse him; and he shall set the live bird free in the open country.

.... The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: (34) When you enter the land of Canaan that I give you as a possession, and I inflict an eruptive plague upon a house in the land you possess, (35) the owner of the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, “Something like a plague has appeared upon my house.” (36) The priest shall order the house cleared before the priest enters to examine the plague, so that nothing in the house may become unclean; after that the priest shall enter to examine the house. (37) If, when he examines the plague, the plague in the walls of the house is found to consist of greenish or reddish streaks that appear to go deep into the wall, (38) the priest shall come out of the house to the entrance of the house, and close up the house for seven days. (39) On the seventh day the priest shall return. If he sees that the plague has spread on the walls of the house, (40) the priest shall order the stones with the plague in them to be pulled out and cast outside the city into an unclean place. (41) The house shall be scraped inside all around, and the coating that is scraped off shall be dumped outside the city in an unclean place. (42) They shall take other stones and replace those stones with them, and take other coating and plaster the house. (43) If the plague again breaks out in the house, after the stones have been pulled out and after the house has been scraped and replastered, (44) the priest shall come to examine: if the plague has spread in the house, it is a malignant eruption in the house; it is unclean. (45) The house shall be torn down—its stones and timber and all the coating on the house—and taken to an unclean place outside the city. (46) Whoever enters the house while it is closed up shall be unclean until evening. (47) Whoever sleeps in the house must wash his clothes, and whoever eats in the house must wash his clothes. (48) If, however, the priest comes and sees that the plague has not spread in the house after the house was replastered, the priest shall pronounce the house clean, for the plague has healed. (49) To purge the house, he shall take two birds, cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop. (50) He shall slaughter the one bird over fresh water in an earthen vessel. (51) He shall take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the crimson stuff, and the live bird, and dip them in the blood of the slaughtered bird and the fresh water, and sprinkle on the house seven times. (52) Having purged the house with the blood of the bird, the fresh water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the crimson stuff, (53) he shall set the live bird free outside the city in the open country. Thus he shall make expiation for the house, and it shall be clean. (54) Such is the ritual for every eruptive affection—for scalls, (55) for an eruption on a cloth or a house, (56) for swellings, for rashes, or for discolorations— (57) to determine when they are unclean and when they are clean. Such is the ritual concerning eruptions.

(11) He was the wisest of all men: [wiser] than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Chalkol, and Darda the sons of Mahol. His fame spread among all the surrounding nations. (12) He composed three thousand proverbs, and his songs numbered one thousand and five. (13) He discoursed about trees, from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; and he discoursed about beasts, birds, creeping things, and fishes. (14) Men of all peoples came to hear Solomon’s wisdom, [sent] by all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom.

(1) TO TAKE FOR HIM THAT IS TO BE CLEANSED. The kohen shall take of his own. Some say that the leper shall give them. The tav of the hitpa’el form is swallowed by the dagesh in the tet of mittaher (cleansed). The word mittaher follows the form of mithallel (boasteth himself) in he that boasteth himself (Prov. 25:14). (2) TWO…BIRDS. The term tzippor applies to all birds. Note, he shall take any bird that he finds. (3) LIVING. Not dead. (4) CLEAN. He shall not take from the unclean. (5) AND CEDAR-WOOD…AND HYSSOP. These are the biggest and smallest among the plants. This is proven by Scripture’s description of Solomon’s wisdom. There is no reason to search for the meaning of the word ezov (hyssop), for it is known by tradition. Note, the leper and the plagued house and uncleanness caused by a corpse are similar. They are also similar to the Egyptian Passover.

R. Chalafta Ish Kfar Chaninah says: If ten sit in judgment, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is written (Psalms 82:1): "G-d stands in the congregation of the Almighty" [and a "congregation" is not less than ten, as it is written in respect to the spies (Numbers 14:27): "How long for this evil congregation!" (Joshua and Kalev are excluded, leaving ten)]. And whence (is this derived) even for five? From (Psalms 82:1): "In the midst of the judges [(three judges and the litigants)] shall He judge." And (whence is this derived) even for three? From (Amos 9:6): "And He founded His bond upon the earth." [(three:) fire, air, and water (which circle the foundation of the earth) — whence it is seen that three is a "bond." Or from (Exodus 12:22): "a bundle (three stalks) of hyssop." There are texts which read: And whence do we derive even five? From "And He founded His bond upon the earth." A man "bonds" with one hand, on which there are five fingers. And the (five) fingers of the hand collectively are called a "bond." And the beginning of the verse reads: "He builds His ascents in the heavens." That is, the Shechinah, which is in the heavens, descends to the earth when there is a bond (of men) engaged in Torah study. And whence do we derive even three? From "In the midst of the judges (three) shall He judge."] And whence do we derive even two? From (Malachi 3:16): "Then the fearers of the L rd spoke to each other [(two are implied)] and the L rd listened and heard, etc." and whence do we derive even one? From (Exodus 20:21): "Wherever I mention My name, I shall come to you and bless you."

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where does he derive this requirement by Torah law? The Gemara answers: By means of a verbal analogy, he derives the term taking, written with regard to the four species, from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in Egypt: “Take a bundle of hyssop” (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, in the context of the four species: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. And the Rabbis hold: We do not derive the term taking from the term taking by means of the verbal analogy.

"And you shall take (acquire) for yourselves on the first day" (Leviticus 23:40). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana opened [his discourse]: "'Accept my discipline rather than silver' - accept the discipline of Torah rather than silver. 'Why do you weigh money for what is not bread' (Isaiah 55:2) - why are you weighing money for the Children of Esav for what is not bread? Since you did not sate yourselves with the bread of Torah. 'Your toil is for what does not satisfy' (Isaiah 55:2) - why are you toiling, and the nations of the world satiated without satiation? Since you did not satiate yourselves from the wine of Torah, as it is written (Proverbs 9:5), 'and drink the wine that I have mixed.'" Rabbi Berakhiah and Rabbi Chiya his father said in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Nehoria, "It is written (Jeremiah 30:20), 'And I will remember all who press him' - even charity collectors - except for the wage of scribes and teachers of Mishnah who only take the wage of their idleness alone. But there is no creature that can give the wage of one thing of the Torah [commensurate to] its reward." It was taught, "The sustenance of a man is fixed from Rosh Hashanah, except for what he expends [for] Shabbat, holidays, Rosh Chodesh and what the infants take to the house of their teacher - if he adds [to this], it is added to him; if he lessens, it is lessened from him." Rabbi Yochanan was travelling, he left from Tiveria [to go] to Tsipporin, and Rabbi Chiya bar Abba was helping him. They reached a plot of farmland. [Rabbi Yochanan] said, "This farmland was mine, but I sold it in order to acquire Torah." They reached one that was a vineyard. He said, "This vineyard was mine, but I sold it in order to acquire Torah." They reached one that was an olive grove. He said, "This olive grove was mine, but I sold it in order to acquire Torah." Rabbi Chiya started to cry. Rabbi Yochanan said, "Why are you crying?" He said to him, "Since you did not leave anything for your old age." He said to him, "Is what I did light in your eyes, that I sold something created in six days and purchased something that was given over forty days, as it is stated (Exodus 34:28), 'And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights'; and it is written (Deuteronomy 9:9), 'and I dwelt on the mountain forty days and forty nights.'" When Rabbi Yochanan [died], his generation read about him (Song of Songs 8:7), "if a man offered all the wealth of his home for love" - as Rabbi Yochanan loved the Torah - "he would surely be scorned." When Rabbi Hoshaya, the man of Tirya [died], they saw his bier flying in the air; and his generation read about him (Song of Songs 8:7), "if a man offered all the wealth of his home for love" - as the Holy One, blessed be He, loved Abba Hoshaya, the man of Tirya - "he would surely be scorned." When Rabbi Elazar beRabbi Shimon [died], his generation read about him (Song of Songs 3:6), "Who is she that comes up from the desert like columns of smoke, in clouds of myrrh and frankincense, from all the powders of the merchant?" What is [the understanding of] "from all the powders of the merchant?" Rather [it is] since he read and studied, was a lyricist and an orator. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said "You learn the reward of purchasing from the reward of purchasing: About Egypt, it is written (Exodus 12:22), 'And acquire a bunch of hyssop.' What is its price? Four small coins. But it caused Israel to possess the spoils of the [Reed Sea], the spoils of Sichon and Og and the spoils of [the] thirty-one kings [of Canaan]. All the more so [is this true] of a lulav, which can become a man's for a little money and has several commandments with it. Hence Moshe warns Israel and says to them (Leviticus 23:40), 'And you shall take (acquire) for yourselves on the first day.'"

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: For six months David was afflicted with leprosy and the Divine Presence abandoned him and the members of the Sanhedrin dissociated themselves from him. He was afflicted with leprosy, as it is stated: “Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow” (Psalms 51:9), indicating that he required purification like a leper. The Divine Presence abandoned him, as it is stated: “Restore me to joy of Your salvation; and uphold me with a willing spirit” (Psalms 51:14). And the members of the Sanhedrin dissociated themselves from him, as it is stated: “Let those who fear You turn to me, and those who have known Your testimonies” (Psalms 119:79). From where do we derive that this lasted for six months? It is derived as it is written: “And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years;

in Hebron he reigned seven years, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years” (I Kings 2:11). And it is written: “In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months and in Jerusalem he reigned for thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah” (II Samuel 5:5). And those six months, the prophet did not tally them as part of the forty years of King David’s reign. Conclude from it that there were six months that he was not considered king because he was afflicted with leprosy.

David said before Him after this: Master of the Universe, pardon me for this sin. God said to him: It is forgiven for you. David requested: “Perform on my behalf a sign for good, that they that hate me may see it and be put to shame” (Psalms 86:17); show me a sign in my lifetime so that everyone will know that You have forgiven me. God said to him: In your lifetime I will not make it known that you were forgiven, but I will make it known in the lifetime of your son, Solomon.

עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת CEDAR WOOD AND HYSSOP AND CRIMSON — These three species correspond to the three thousand men who fell by the edge of the sword on account of the golden calf. The cedar is the loftiest of all trees and the hyssop the lowliest of all — a symbol that the man of high position who displays pride and on that account falls into sin should make himself as lowly as the hyssop and the worm (תולעת), and he will then gain atonement.

The Gemara relates that prior to Ravina’s death, Rav Ashi said to bar Kippok, who was a famous eulogizer: On that day when Ravina will die, what will you say? He said to him: I shall begin my eulogy and say as follows: If the cedars went up in flame, what shall the hyssop of the wall do? If the leviathan was lifted by a hook, what shall the tiny fish of the marsh do? If dryness overtook a flowing river, what can the water of the puddles do?

How would they purify a metzora?A new earthenware flask and a quarter of a log of living water was put in it. Two undomesticated birds are also brought. One of these was slaughtered over the earthenware vessel and over the living water. A hole was dug and it was buried in his presence. Cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were taken and bound together with the remaining ends of the strip of wool. Near to these were brought the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the second bird. All were dipped together, and sprinkled upon the back of the metzora's hand seven times. Some say that the sprinkling was done upon his forehead. In the same manner one would sprinkle on the lintel of a house from the outside.

Any hyssop that has an accompanying name is invalid. "This" hyssop is valid. Ezovyon (lavendula) hyssop, blue hyssop, Roman hyssop or wild hyssop is invalid. That of unclean terumah is invalid. That of clean terumah should not be used for sprinkling, but if one had used it for sprinkling it is valid. The sprinkling must not be done either with the young shoots or with the berries. He is not liable [after the sprinkling had been done] with young shoots for entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer says: also not if it was done with the berries. The following are regarded as young shoots: the stalks before the buds have ripened.

The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Judah says: each stalk should have three buds. Hyssop that consists of a growth of three stalks should be cut apart and then bound together. If the stalks were cut apart but were not bound together, or if they were bound together but were not cut apart, or if they were neither cut apart nor bound together, they are nevertheless valid. Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.

The mitzvah of the cedarwood is for it to be one cubit in length, and in thickness a quarter of that of the leg of a bed, when one leg is divided into two halves and these two into four. The mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should be neither ezovyon (lavendula) nor blue hyssop nor Roman hyssop nor wild hyssop nor any kind of hyssop that has an accompanying name.

With regard to the two types of loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite: The bread and wafers (see Numbers 6:15); the three species that are part of the rite of the red heifer: The cedar, hyssop, and scarlet wool (see Numbers 19:6); and the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering: The loaves, wafers, loaves soaked in hot water, and leavened bread (see Leviticus 7:12); and the four species of the lulav: The lulav, etrog, myrtle, and willow (see Leviticus 23:40); and the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper: The cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds (see Leviticus 14:4), failure to bring each of the components prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.

Hyssop that is too short may be lengthened with a thread and a spindle-reed. He then dips it and brings it up again. He grasps the hyssop itself and sprinkles with it. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon say: just as the sprinkling must be done with the hyssop itself so to must the dipping be done with the hyssop itself.

GEMARA: Rav Yosef said: Unspecified hyssop mentioned in the Torah is called abarta bar hamag in Babylonia, and eizoveyon is called abarta bar hing. Ulla said: The hyssop mentioned in the Torah is white sage. The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda. They brought white sage before him. He said: This is the hyssop that is written in the Torah. Rav Pappi said: Hyssop is the root called shumeshuk. Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: In accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappi it is reasonable, as we learned in a mishna: The mitzva of hyssop is that one take three branches each with three stems, and shumeshuk is the species that is found with that configuration of three stems on each of its branches. The Gemara says: For what purpose do people eat it? It is eaten for curing intestinal worms. And with what is it eaten? It is eaten with seven black dates. From what do worms come into being in the intestines? They come into being from eating barley flour from a vessel that held the flour for forty days since it was ground.

One may eat food and drinks that are in the way of healthy people to eat and drink, such as cilantro, hops and hyssop. Even though they heal and [people] eat them to be healed, it is permissible – as they are healthy people’s foods. If one drank asafoetida before Shabbat, it is permissible to drink it on Shabbat [even] in locations where healthy people are [not] accustomed to drink asafoetida. And we may drink Egyptian beer in every location.

'זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה ה, when the Torah in Nuimbers 8,7 had spoken of the need to sprinkle the waters of “chatat” on the Levites in order to purify them before they would begin their function newly assigned to them, our sages (Yuma 16) had already referred to the procedure as a chukkah, a statute, adding that these kinds of statute must not be questioned and probed as they are in the nature of a decree issued by G’d. The wise King Solomon, when mentioning that he had striven to unravel the wisdom in this legislation admitted that he had failed, that it was beyond him. (Kohelet 7,23). The thing which is most baffling in the red heifer legislation is that most who is ritually pure becomes ritually contaminated by direct contact with it, although the whole purpose of the red heifer, its ash, etc., is to purify the people who had been ritually contaminated prior to being sprinkled with spring water containing its ashes.
However, when we examine the entire commandment in detail we find that some of the people concerned with that red heifer from the moment it has been burned after having been slaughtered become ritually contaminated, i.e. the person burning its carcass, the person collecting its ashes, as well as the ones throwing the cedar wood as well as the one using the hyssop and crimson thread. into its burnt ashes. The same applies to all those either touching the remains or carrying them.
By contrast, the person performing the sprinkling with the mixture of the ash and water as well as the one sanctifying the location where the red heifer is to be burned and the one lighting the fire prior to burning the slaughtered red heifer are not contaminated by their activities.
One of the principal conditions concerning the red heifer is the requirement that it must not even have 2 hairs that are white or black. The symbolism of the colour red is supplied by the prophet Isaiah 1,18 who writes that even if your sins are as red as certain type or wool dyed red they can become white as snow under certain conditions of remorse.
Our sages considered this line so important that they used to tie a red string to the entrance of the Sanctuary when the scapegoat was thrown down on the Day of Atonement. This string would turn white as proof that the people’s sins had been forgiven. When this happened the people would rejoice for the remainder of that day, whereas when it failed to turn white they would be greatly saddened. (Yuma 67)
We must remember that seeing that in the words of Solomon (Proverbs 30,5) אמרת ה' צרופה, “everything G’d has said is absolutely pure, refined,” He has no doubt kept in mind that all extremes are looked upon with disfavour so that His legislation must represent what Maimonides called the “golden mean.” Solomon himself described any perversion as something deserving total failure. (compare Proverbs 28,18).
Furthermore, we must remember that when attempting to rectify something that has become bent out of shape by merely bending it in the opposite direction partially this will not restore it to its previous condition, but that it must be reversed completely in order to eventually be straight again. This is a principle applied by physicians in healing physical ailments, a principle described in Proverbs 20,30 as חבורות פצע תמריק ברע, “you must eradicate wounds and injuries by using (what appear to be) harmful remedies.” In other words, although the application of such remedies appears to run counter to the goal of preserving the golden mean, in such situations anything less drastic would never rectify the harm that had been caused by the injury. If similar means were to be applied to a completely healthy person they would, of course, be harmful instead of helpful.
A fifth consideration when contemplating the legislation in front of us is that the ash of the red heifer is effective in the context of ritual impurity only when the ritual impurity was caused by direct or indirect contact with a dead person’s body. Any other kind of ritual contamination, such as blood of menstruation, dead creeping things, and a number of other causes of such ritual defilements are not affected at all by the treatment here described.
We know that Torah by definition is designed to improve the quality of life of the people observing its laws. The Torah spells this out in Deuteronomy 32,47 by writing: כי היא חייכם, “for it is your very life.” Anyone deviating from the laws of the Torah either is on the way to spiritual and physical death or is already at the point where, although he is walking around he is legally considered as dead. This is what the sages meant when they said that “the wicked are considered as dead although to all intents and purposes masquerading as alive.” (B’rachot 18).
A sixth consideration we must bear in mind in connection with this statute is that our sages consider the cedar wood as a symbol of haughtiness, arrogance, whereas they consider the hyssop herb as a symbol of humility (Erchin 16). When the two are paired with the red wool known as תולעת שני, each alludes to something sinful. [the subject in the Talmud there is that a Torah scholar, though he needs to practice humility, nevertheless must maintain a certain amount of dignity so that people dealing with him do not get the impression that he is merely a “wimp,” a feeble ineffective personality. [Compare Sotah 5, discussing a saying by Rabbi Hunna son of Rabbi Joshua and the M’iri on that saying. Ed.] Excessive humility in a person charged with leadership is as counterproductive as arrogance in an individual who has not been called upon to serve as a model to anyone.
Our sages quote as an example of excessive humility by a person in public life the humility of Israel’s first King, King Sha-ul, who was punished by G’d for not displaying authority when it needed to be displayed and allowed the common people to get away with making insulting remarks about him without disciplining them. (compare Yuma 22, reference to Samuel I 10,27- 11,13). Even later on in his reign when he excused himself for not having killed the best livestock of the Amalekites, Sha-ul cited his “fear” of the people a the reason why he did not protest the people’s taking these as loot, something which had been forbidden (Samuel I 15,17). The prophet upraided him for behaving with his customary humility in public life, in the discharge of his duties as King.
Having said all this we come to the conclusion that although the whole red heifer legislation is a statute, a decree by G’d which must not be questioned, and we must not, G’d forbid, arrogate to ourselves to judge this legislation as suitable or not, seeing that everything G’d has said is pure and refined, it does teach some exceptionally valuable lessons even when looked at superficially as we have done. Although people like Moses and others on a high level of wisdom may have had an insight into the deeper meaning of this statute, we must learn what we can from what meets the eye.
An important lesson of value to every penitent for every sin committed appears to be the one that in trying to rectify one’s error, one must not content oneself to bend the “bent iron” back with the same amount of force it took to bend it out of shape in the first place, but one must strive to bend it beyond that so that in the future the likelihood of committing the same sin again will be reduced. {We encounter many בעלי תשובה in our daily lives who appear to relate to certain commandments with what appears to be exaggerated stringency. No doubt they have taken to heart what our author just explained about how to straighten out what has been bent out of shape. Ed.]
The red heifer legislation and its details appears among other objectives to indicate a path for the penitents how to make their repentance effective and lasting. The principal element is a complete reversal of the path in life which led him to commit the sins he became guilty of in the first place.
One of the lessons we learn from the details of this legislation is that whereas the method described in our portion is effective for the sinner who wishes to cleanse himself of his sins, i.e. to address himself to his problem by using extreme measures, such extremism when used by anyone other than a repentant sinner would have the opposite effect, i.e. it would make out the previously unblemished, pure, ritually clean person the very reverse, would contaminate him with ritual impurity (a euphemism for his sins.) The sinner is permitted, nay encouraged, commanded to use extreme measures in order to eventually achieve the balance represented by Maimonides’ ideal, the golden mean.
The Talmud Taanit, 11 in describing the procedure of the Nazir terminating his vow (Numbers 6,11) questions the line וכפר עליו מאשד חטא על הנפש, “he will thereby atone for the sin against his soul,” wanting to know what sin such a Nazir could possibly have been guilty of? The answer given is that during the period of his abstinence from wine the Nazir experienced great distress over having to abstain from wine etc. It is reasoned that if the Torah describes a person who causes himself unnecessary distress in one small area of life as a sinner, how much more so will it consider a person who abstains from all food and drink a sinner? [the paragraph commenced with the sage Sh’muel describing people who voluntarily practice fasts as sinners. Ed.]
Consider the fact that the instrument the Torah provides for ritually cleansing the person who had become defiled through contact with a deceased person as a mixture of spring water and ash from the red heifer. This mixture is composed of two extremes, i.e. residues of pure water and fire. Merging these two extremes appears (symbolically) is an excellent way of regaining the path known as the golden mean. Using this combination teaches us that this golden mean is what G’d considers as טהרה, ritual purity, as spelled out in the Torah’s description of the function of the Day of Atonement, מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו “you will become purified from all your sins before (against) the Lord,” (Leviticus 16,30).
We have to contemplate the fact that the Torah decrees that a person who has been defiled by contact with a dead person must not touch the Tabernacle of the Lord, (verse 13) and that he must not enter the airspace of the Tabernacle on pain of contaminating it, (verse 20). I believe the hidden meaning of this regulation is that anyone who has been in too close contact with the vanities of the terrestrial universe (to use the phraseology employed by Solomon in Kohelet again and again) automatically will confer some of the pollution represented by these vanities to sacred things he comes into contact with. He will therefore taint the צלם אלוקים, the Divine image in which he has been created. As a result, he must repair, remove such a taint in order to regain his former stature as an אדם.
Contact with the dead, results in an awareness of the transience of the lives of all of us, makes us aware of the negative aspects of our lives in this world; this is bound to leave a mark on our personality, one that may even border on considering life on earth as an exercise in futility, as indicated by Solomon when he speaks of such matters in Kohelet. The “world” Kohelet describes, i.e.תחת השמש, as if it exists only beneath the sun, a material world only, would indeed lead its inhabitants to such conclusions.
We who believe in a world מעבר לשמש, beyond that serviced by the sun, fortunately have something better to look forward to if we prepare ourselves for this. [I have added remarks of my own to the words of the author but I am certain that these remarks reflect his message. Ed.]
When the Torah speaks of וכל הבא אל האהל, “anyone entering the tent wherein the deceased is kept,” this may be understood allegorically as anyone coming under the influence of the הבלי העולם, the vanities of this terrestrial world, the ultimate uselessness of an existence premised on this being all there is to life.
Our chapter, when read as a simile, reminds the reader of what the task of an עם קדוש, a “holy nation” is, that it cannot be combined with the pursuit of merely secularly oriented pursuits, they are literally a “dead alley.” The expression משכן ה' in verse 13 would be the human body, whereas the expression מקדש ה' would refer to our soul. The author, following the view that gentile corpses do not confer ritual impurity when merely in the same airspace with a Jew, understands this halachah as reflecting the fact that only the body, the physical raw material is called upon to perform the commandments.
Seeing that even being in the same airspace as a dead person confers ritual impurity, it is not difficult to understand that people who engage in sprinkling the waters of the red cow and its ash on a person so contaminated, will in turn be affected by such contact with him, and will themselves absorb a degree of impurity, though much less severe, one that can be cleansed by immersion on a ritual bath the same evening.
People engaged in indirect procedures preparing the מי נדה will not become ritually impure as they were not in contact with the party to be purified at all. We see that there are many aspects of this commandment which yield valuable lessons for us the readers even if we do not penetrate to the innermost meaning of the legislation.

This remedy is beneficial for several ailments, and the Gemara presents each of these in turn: For curing the heart, the above combination should be taken with wine, and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “And wine that makes glad the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15). For curing an ailment that arises due to the wind [ruḥa], one drinks the mixture in water, and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “And the spirit [ruaḥ] of God hovered over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). For childbirth [lekhuda], a woman in labor drinks the mixture with beer [shikhra], and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “With her pitcher [vekhadah] upon her shoulder [shikhmah]” (Genesis 24:15).

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One may lift the unkali on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the unkali? Rabbi Abba said: It is the edge of the ribs [istumkha] near the heart which sometimes bend inward, in which case they must be lifted and straightened into their proper position. The Gemara asks: What is the cure for one whose unkali has been bent? He should take cumin, caraway, mint [ninya], wormwood, satureja, and hyssop.

Karpas: One dips green vegetables in salt water to symbolize that like karpas, we must undergo an entire immersion of one's body for the purpose of a complete purification. One should not be like the person who immerses himself with an impure reptile in his hand, God forbid! This is an allusion to the fact that the Israelites were idolaters while they were in Egypt. When God took them out of Egypt in order sanctify them by giving them the Torah, it was necessary first to remove the impurity that was upon them and to have them perform complete repentance. One immerses the greens to symbolize the Baal Teshuvah (repentant) who is as humble as the plants in the field which are trampled underfoot.
The greens are called karpas, which comes from the word for trampled over; or it is related to the word refes, spelled with a shin instead of a samech, which is the word for mud or earth. (See Rashi in Proverbs, 6) Karpas is a reminder that the Israelites were humiliated by the Egyptians; they were like "mud and dirt."
The combination of the words rehatz and karpas also hint at the process of purification: first cleansing oneself, then immersion and finally 'sprinkling,' as we find in the law of the red heifer: the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer mixed in water was done with a bunch of hyssop. (See Nu.19:18) Here we dip a bunch of greens as an allusion to this ritual of purification. Similarly, the people were commanded in Egypt to dip some greens in the blood of the Passover lamb and to place the blood on the lintel and the doorposts of their homes, as it says, You shall take a bunch of hyssops.." (Ex. 12:22)
Another reason for dipping: Having preparing himself to go before the King, he now shows his allegiance and his willingness to obey the King's command. By dipping the greens in salt water or vinegar, he still remembers the time when he was humbled while in Egypt and that God took us out of subjugation so that we could reach this exalted level. The dipping of karpas alludes to two opposing ideas, subjugation and freedom. First it symbolizes subjugation when our lives were like the vinegar or the salt water, and in the end it symbolizes the merit of dipping the hyssop when we fulfilled the commandment of placing the blood on the doorposts of our homes, so that Israel was saved from the death of the first born and afterwards they went forth to freedom.

From the laws of the commandment is what are the [types] of work on the land about which there is an obligation of rest by Torah writ - such as planting, pruning, reaping and harvesting; and that are forbidden by rabbinic writ - such as fertilizing, digging and work on trees such as cutting off excrescences, removing dry leave or stalks from it, placing dust [on exposed roots], raising smoke below it to kill insects, oiling saplings, pruning and removing trees; and that which they permitted to do, such as reddening with dye, hoeing under grape vines. And the law of an irrigated field. And that they should not make a dungpile in his field until the time of fertilizing is over; and that afterwards it be big and not appear like fertilizing - and its size is from one hundred and fifty seah and above. That which they said (Moed Katan 3b) that the obligation to refrain from working the land is from thirty days before the seventh year and that this is a law given to Moshe at Sinai (halacha le'Moshe miSinai). And the law of how much time from the sixth year is forbidden to work in a field of trees, and what is called a field of trees. And the prohibition of implanting shoots in the ground and grafting; what is [to be done with] his saplings; what is the law of the fruits of the seventh [year] - as we do not make a medicinal chew or a bandage from anything that is uniquely for human food, such as wheat and barley and fruits, as with them it states, "to eat it." But we do make a medicinal chew or a bandage for humans - though not for animals - from anything that is uniquely for animal food, such as thorns and thistles. And behold, that which is not uniquely for humans or animals - such as rubia, hyssop and thyme - depends on the designation of the person: [If] he designated them for food, their law is like food; but [if] he designated them for wood, their law is like wood. And the rest of its many details are elucidated in the tractate that is built upon this, and that is Tractate Sheviit (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 4).

The uncleanness through leprosy we have already explained. Our Sages have also clearly stated the meaning thereof. All agree that leprosy is a punishment for slander. The disease begins in the walls of the houses (Lev. 14:33, seq.). If the sinner repents, the object is attained: if he remains in his disobedience, the disease affects his bed and house furniture: if he still continues to sin, the leprosy attacks his own garments, and then his body. This is a miracle received in our nation by tradition, in the same manner as the effect of the trial of a faithless wife (Num. v. ii, seq.). The good effect of this belief is evident. Leprosy is besides a contagious disease, and people almost naturally abhor it, and keep away from it. The purification was effected by cedar-wood, hyssop, scarlet thread, and two birds (Lev. 14:4); their reason is stated in various Midrashic sayings, but the explanation does not agree with our theory. I do not know at present the reason of any of these things; nor why cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet were used in the sacrifice of the red heifer (Num. 19:6); nor why a bundle of hyssop was commanded for the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover-lamb (Exod. 12:22). I cannot find any principle upon which to found an explanation why these particular things have been chosen.

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah entered to eat of late fruits; the watchman shouted at them, and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stopped. Rebbi told him: eat, because the owners already gave up their expectations for them! Rebbi Joḥanan asked: He shouted, and you say so? Rebbi Jonah said, he objects rightfully. But does not a Mishnah disagree: “ Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are tended.” Hence, in the garden they are free even if they are watched. There, he may say, the entire world is before you, but here, there is one basketful and I am watching it for my employer.

I ask as one who is skeptical of Maimonides’s words: What is that thing that Maimonides would call “derived by natural reason”? Does this mean that it was derived by the study of those sages who composed books about nature, such as Aristotle, Galen, and their peers, who composed books on the nature of effective remedies and medicaments based on their studies, and that anything not attained by their studies is included in the prohibition on Emorite ways? Is it because the study of these sages’ efforts in the science of nature incorporates every natural phenomenon according to its nature? Are these sages the culmination of all possible natural inquiry? This, in truth, is unreasonable. For in truth, the things that work magically do not work by means that are external to them. Rather, their nature is magical, that is, their nature cannot be understood through the inquiry of wise men, perhaps even the wisest of all sages, due to the scope of nature’s concealment from the human race because of its very humanness. An example is the magic of a magnet, to which iron jumps. More than that, it is customary among seafarers to stick a pin through a piece of wood floating on the surface of the water and bring it close to a magnet, and then it will glide over the surface of the water until it points toward the pole; then it will stop. No sage among these sages of the science of nature can comprehend this by studying nature. Therefore, any object in nature with magical properties also functions like medicaments and remedies, and their use is not considered the ways of the Emorites, just like those well-known substances whose efficacy is based on the natural studies of those sages. Moreover, perhaps their studies have yet derived what has been derived from the studies of the wisest man (=King Solomon) to write a medical treatise: “He spoke of trees, from the cedars of Lebanon to the hyssop in the wall” (1 Melakhim 5:13). If so, who should we forbid that which they say comes from magical nature? Perhaps it has been derived from the study of the wisest man even though it has not derived from the studies of one of these sages of nature.

According to the Zohar, “R. Yehudah said, why is it written, ‘even this God made corresponding to that?‘God made the earth to correspond to the firmament. Everything [below] alludes to what is above. For when R. Abba would see a certain tree whose fruit would change into a bird that flew from it, he would weep and say, ‘if human beings only knew to what this alludes….’ As R. Yose said, these trees from which wisdom can be learned, such as the carob, palm, pistachio, and the like were all borne in one chariot. All those [trees] that bear fruit, except the apple tree, allude to one supernal mystery…. And all the small ones, except for the hyssop, are the offspring of one mother. In heaven, powerful intermediaries are placed over each of the earth’s plants, and each has its own mystery, just as above.”

ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזוב, “and cedarwood, crimson thread and hyssop.” The verse mentioned both the most precious and the lowliest of plants. Solomon did the same thing in Kings I, 5,13 when he was described as lecturing about the cedars of the Lebanon and the hyssop. Our sages comment that the inclusion of both types of plants in the same breath teach that if one had arrogated to oneself the mien of something superior to oneself, i.e. given oneself a title that one had not earned, the only way to atone for this and to regain one’s true station in life is to demean oneself to the level of the lowest in the social order, the hyssop (compare Rashi).

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

A vine which was planted in a courtyard: one may take a whole cluster [and eat it without tithing]. Similarly with a pomegranate, or a melon, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: he can pick single berries from the cluster, or split the pomegranate into slices, or cut slices of melon [and eat without tithing]. Coriander which was sown in a courtyard: one may pluck leaf by leaf and eat [without tithing], but if he ate them together he is liable [for tithes]. Savory and hyssop, and thyme which are in the courtyard, if they are kept watch over, they are liable for tithe.