What do Red Heifers and Brazen Serpents Have in Common?

            The law of the para aduma, (red heifer) is referred to in the verse as a ḥok, a law whose ultimate meaning cannot be fathomed by human beings. Actually, the para aduma represents the archetypical ḥok, As our Sages taught us, even the wisest of men, King Solomon could not understand this ḥok.

            One of the apparently unusual aspects of the laws of the para aduma is the fact that while the ashes effect tahara (ritual purification) of one who has come into contact with a corpse, those who prepared the para aduma  become tamei (ritually impure).

            My father pointed out that science essentially confirms this principle. Immunization works by injecting a serum containing the actual disease, causing the body to build up antibodies, which convey immunity to the disease. That which causes the disease, under certain circumstances provides the cure.

            We find the same lesson taught later in the parasha.  When the People complained against God, He sent deadly serpents to punish them. Yet when the People asked Moses to save them, God instructed him to make a brazen serpent as the cure. In a sense, this latter incident focuses the principal. The brazen serpent can be seen as a “graven image”, the manufacture of which is forbidden by the Torah. Specifically something which could be idolatrous became God’s instrument for saving His people. As our Sages taught us, the brazen serpent did not have the power to grant life. Rather, it is a symbol: when the Israelites looked up to the serpent and dedicated their hearts to God, they were saved. The same piece of copper which can become an idol, when used properly, becomes God’s agent of salvation. It is a function not of the brazen serpent itself, but of how we use it.

Physical versus Spiritual Giants

And God said to Moses: do not fear him.

                                                    Numbers 21:34    

Our Sages wonder why Moses feared Og but not Siḥon, whom he fought shortly before his battle against Og.

Rabbi Yochanan, quoting Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, says… [Moses said] perhaps the virtue of Abraham will stand for Og, as the verse [Genesis 14:13] says: “and the one who escaped came and informed Abraham the Hebrew” [of his nephew Lot’s captivity]. And “the one who escaped” is Og. Babylonian Talmud, Nidda 61a

The Talmud’s wording (“the virtue of Abraham will stand for Og”) seems odd as it does not impute affirmative merit to Og for having informed Abraham of Lot’s plight. It would seem that our Sages wish to convey that Og, being less than righteous, had no independent merit. Having done a favor for Abraham, Og would have “cashed in” on Abraham’s merit, but would not have achieved the level of having his own merit.

Midrash Breishit Rabba [42] states that Og, who hoped to be able to take Sarah if Abraham were killed attempting to rescue Lot, was selfishly motivated to inform Abraham of Lot’s capture. Tosafot [Zeh Og, Nidda, ibid.] note that despite Og’s impure motives in performing a favor for Abraham, the mere fact that he had done so would allow Og to benefit from Abraham’s merit. The essential lesson is that one must appreciate the positive things others have done for him, even if those things were done out of selfish motivation.

Maharal of Prague expresses amazement at the Talmudic comment: how is it possible that Abraham’s merit would serve Og and not Abraham’s own descendants?

Maharal explains the Torah’s description of Og as a giant to mean that he was a physical giant. By contrast, Moses was a spiritual giant. In a clash between the physical and the spiritual, it is the spiritual which will prevail. However, when a physical giant also has a spiritual aspect, a most powerful combination is created. Thus, Moses feared that Og, having helped Abraham, may have taken on some of Abraham’s merit. Og may have added a spiritual dimension to his physical prowess, allowing him to overcome Moses’ spiritual superiority. However, as Og had not integrated any of Abraham’s spiritual merit, G-d assured Moses that he need not fear Og.

Message of Leadership

And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom: “Thus says your brother Israel: You know all the travail that has befallen us…                      Numbers 20:14

            In the following chapter [21:21], we read of the similar message to Siḥon, king of the Amorites:

And Israel sent messengers to Siḥon, king of the Amorites, saying …

Rashi notes that the first messengers were dispatched by Moses, while the second were sent by Israel, and comments, based upon Midrash Tanḥuma, “Moses is Israel and Israel is Moses.” There is synergy between the leader and the people, with the leader identified with the people.

            Alshikh offers an additional explanation of the originators of the two messages. Noting that the message to the king of Edom was sent after God had decreed that Moses would not enter the Promised Land, Alshikh suggests that the Children of Israel did not send the message to the king of Edom, for had he agreed, it would have shortened Israel’s trip into the Land, and hence shortened Moses’ life. Therefore, Moses acted, demonstrating, in the Alshikh’s words, that he valued the nation’s benefit above his own life.

        Rabbi Yehonatan Eybschutz explains the same point in different words: “the fulfillment of God’s promise to the Forefathers to give Land to their descendants was dearer to Moses than his own self, therefore Moses hurried to send messengers to the king of Edom.”

            What a tremendous lesson about leadership we learn from both Rashi and Alshikh – Rabbi Yehonatan’s comments: a true leader does not give up his individuality, rather subjugates his personal needs to the welfare of his congregation.

Capturing Captives

When the Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that the Israelites were traveling along the Atarim Highway, he attacked them and took some captives.                                                Numbers 21:1

            Rabbi Yehonatan Eybschutz notes that the wording of the verse seems redundant, since the literal translation is: and he captured some captives. Rabbi Yehonatan quotes our Sages’ teaching [Avot 6:2] that none is free, save he who occupies himself with Torah, and understands the teaching to mean that one who occupies himself with Torah is free from the influence of the evil inclination (yetzer hara). Thus, it follows that one who does not occupy himself with Torah in essence is a captive of the evil inclination. Amalek was able to fight only against those who were not engaged in Torah, as our Sages [Midrash Tanḥuma, Yitro 50] explained the name Refidim, the site of Amalek’s attack “the hands of Israel were slackened (rafu yedeihem) from mitzvot.” Thus, says Rabbi Yehonatan, the wording of the verse is exact: Amalek captured captives, those who were already captives of the evil inclination.

Paradigm of the Rule of Life

          Rashi, at the beginning of Parashat Hukat comments that the Parah Adumah (red heifer) is a Ḥok, a law which is to be observed despite the fact that its underlying logic is beyond human comprehension. Yet later in the Parasha, Rashi quotes our Sages’ explanation that the Parah Adumah is a rectification of the sin of the golden calf.

          Concerning the apparent contradiction in Rashi’s comments, we can say that the Ḥok aspect of Parah Adumah lies in the apparent oxymoron: as our Sages say “the prosecutor does not become the defender”. That is, it seems inconsistent that the heifer (and its offspring) represent both sin and absolution for that sin. The same apparently inherent contradiction is seen in one of the laws of the Parah Adumah: it purifies the impure and makes the pure impure. While the ashes of the Parah Adumah are necessary to effect ritual purification (tahara) following contact with a dead body, the Kohanim who prepared the Parah Aduma became ritually impure (tamei).

          Perhaps the Torah is teaching a lesson which it conveys many times: things, in and of themselves, are neither good nor bad. What gives value to things is the way man uses them. Indeed, the same creature which was involved in one of Israel’s gravest sins can be used to achieve penitence for that sin. The same Parah Adumah can purify the impure and yet make the pure impure.

          The opening verse of the chapter of the Parah Adumah: “Zot ḥukat haTorah..” can be understood to mean “this is the rule of the Torah”. That is, the Torah presents the Parah Adumah as a paradigm of the rule of life: the value of things is not inherent, rather it is man’s use which determines their worth.

Answering God's Call

Take (kaḥ) Aaron and Elazar his son, and bring them up to Mount Hor.                   Numbers 20:25 With the same word God used to bring Aaron to the priesthood, saying to Moses: "take (kaḥ) Aaron,” He called upon Aaron to ascend the mountain.                                                       Yalkut Shimoni

          My saintly teacher, Rabbi Mordechai Rogov, commented that Yalkut Shimoni teaches us the greatness of Aaron. God's first call of kaḥ, elevating Aaron to the High Priesthood, no doubt was a source of joy for Aaron. The second call, informing Aaron that he is to prepare to die, must have engendered sadness in Aaron. Yet Aaron responded in the same manner to both calls, with the sole intention of fulfilling God's command. Just as Aaron answered the second call without remorse over his impending death, but only with desire to fulfill the divine will, so too his reaction to the call to the High Priesthood was devoid of personal feelings of joy or pride. Aaron accepted his commission as High Priest simply because it was God's will, not for reasons of ego. In the same way that God called Aaron to the priesthood, He called him to ascend the mountain, and Aaron responded in the same way.

The Enemy's Uniform

And the king of Arad, the Canaanite, the inhabitant of the south, heard that Israel came by way of the spies, he made war against Israel and took some of them prisoners. Then Israel vowed a vow to God, saying: if You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, I will doom their cities to destruction.          Numbers 21:1-2

Rashi quotes a Midrashic interpretation:

“The inhabitant of the south” was Amalek, as the verse [Numbers 13:29] says “Amalek was the inhabitant of the south.” But Amalek changed his speech, talking in the Canaanite tongue, so Israel would be misled … But Israel saw their uniforms were those of Amalek …

Given Amalek’s desire to mislead the Israelites, it seems rather strange that they would keep their uniforms but change their language. The uniform is noticeable from a distance, while the difference in speech would be noticed only at relatively close range.

My father explained that the Midrash wishes to issue a warning about the tactics of Israel’s enemies. Amalek, the first to attack Israel after the exodus, was committed to Israel’s destruction. However, on this occasion, Amalek found it convenient to change its language and not openly declare its true intention. Our Sages warn us to be aware that it is the same enemy, whose goals have not changed, despite the different choice of language.

The modern parallel is the claim that the Arab countries (and their supporters throughout the world) are not anti-Semitic, but “only” anti-Zionist.

Perhaps the second contemporary lesson is that must not ignore what we see with our own eyes (the uniforms of Amalek) and prefer to hear that which we want to hear from our enemies.

It remains to be seen if we have learned the lessons which this Midrash teaches.  

In these verses, the Torah describes the battle between the Canaanites and Israel, and in so doing, teaches us how to deal with our enemies. Israel prayed to God, but also went to war against the Canaanites. Torah Judaism teaches that we must do our utmost. We must not say that since we are a small people and the enemy is so strong, we have no chance against him, and therefore we cannot fight. We must do as much as we possibly can. On the other hand, we must not make the mistake of thinking that our strength alone is sufficient. We must fight the enemy, and at the same time pray to God for His help. Through our actions and prayer together, we succeed.