A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 9: Parah: Commentary (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) 9781597529334, 1597529338

Citation preview

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME SIX

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART NINE

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART NINE

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES BY

JACOB NEUSNER University Professor Professor of Religious Studies and The Ungerleider Distinguished Scholar of Judaic Studies Brown University

PART NINE

PARAH COMMENTARY

Wipf&Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene,Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 9 Parah: Commentary By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1976 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-933-4 ISBN 10: 1-59752-933-8 Publication date 3/19/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1976

For S. D. Goitein In admirationandfriendship, onhis seventy-fifthbirthdqy.

CONTENTS Preface

IX

Abbreviations and Bibliography

XI

Transliterations

XVI

Introduction 1 I. Parah Chapter One 22 II. Parah Chapter Two 35 III. Parah Chapter Three . 44 IV. Parah Chapter Four 63 V. Parah Chapter Five 74 VI. Parah Chapter Six 92 VII. Parah Chapter Seven 102 VIII. Parah Chapter Eight 137 IX. Parah Chapter Nine 150 X. Parah Chapter Ten 163 XI. Parah Chapter Eleven . 181 XII. Parah Chapter Twelve 195 215 XIII. Hagigah Chapter Two (2:5-7) XIV. Sifre Numbers on Parah 224 XV. Sifre Zutta on Parah . 249 Appendix: Glosses to Parah. Commentary. By Richard S. SARASON, Brown University . 268 The index of Parts IX and X is at the end of Part X

PREFACE The purposes and methods of this commentary continue those of Kelim, Ohalot, and Negaim, and are explained in Part I (pp. xi-xx). The only change is an effort to produce a somewhat more succinct commentary than in the earlier tractates, effected through greater selectivity both in citation of the classical commentaries and in the definition of the exegetical program. The commentary is meant to provide a clear understanding of the law as I believe it was at the end of the second century, not to investigate those many interesting issues raised after that time and read into the laws of Mishnah-Tosefta. Professor Saul Lieberman continues to assist me in interpreting difficult passages. His prompt and definitive replies to my questions are deeply appreciated. It goes without saying that the present exegesis of Tosefta depends entirely on his T osef et Rishonim. Yet only a small part of that rich corpus of interpretation and insight is drawn upon. He is the provider for our generation and for many to come. From his shoulders upward he is taller than any of the people (I Samuel 9:2). Indeed, in the entire corpus of classical commentaries known to me, I can think of only one which reaches even so high. This work is offered as a birthday present to Professor Shelomo Dov Goitein, celebrating the mid-point between gray hair ( such as remains) and great power. His benign friendship for younger scholars, both in his area of specialization and elsewhere, gladdens the days of many. His kindly, constructive spirit is to be emulated. Given the contrary traits among so many in the field of "Jewish studies," we may scarcely take for granted the presence in our midst of a man of grace and love. We now pass the mid-point in our work, having examined nearly 60% of the Order of Purities. Readers who start at the beginning and follow the work, consulting the commentaries and working out the various texts along with me, will not require an explanation of the interest or value of what is offered here. Those who do not but rather choose episodically to look up what is said about one pericope or another or simply to hunt for ''errors" and "mistakes" will not understand such an explanation. Significant patterns are becoming clear. At the end we shall be able to reach definitive conclusions about various long-standing problems. But much patience yet is needed. It is in the law itself, endlessly engaging and interesting, that we shall find the patience.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY AE Ah. Albeck Ar. A.Z. b. B.B. B.M. B.Q. Ber. Bes. Bik. Blackman

_ -

-

Blau C

Cohn Dan. Danby Dem. Deut. Ed. EG Eisenstein Eruv. Epstein, Nusalp Epstein, Tan. Ex. Git. Gray

GRA

Gruber

H HA Hag. Hai

-

-

'Aqiva Eger, 1761-18?,7. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). Ahilot H. Albeck, Seder 'f ohorot (Jerusakm and Tel Aviv, 1958). CArakhin cA vodah Zarah Bavli, Babylonian Talmud Dava' Batra' Bava0 Me~ica, Bava' Qamma 0 Berakhot Be~ah Bikkurim Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth. VI. Order Taharoth (London, 195 5). Joseph L. Blau, "The red heifer: a Biblical purification rite in Rabbinic literature," Nume12, 1967, 11: 70-78. H. Loewe, The Mishnah of the Palestinian Talmud (ffaivfishnc1h ca/ pi Ketav-Yad Cc1mbridge) (Jerusalem, 1967). Sec Hoffmann. Daniel Herbert Danby, The /1,lishnah (London, 1933). Dema'i Deuteronomy 'Eduyyot Hiddushe Eliyyahu MiGreiditz. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). Judah D. Eisenstein, "Red Heifer," Jewish Encyclopedic1 10: 34,!-5. 'Eruvin Sec Nusalp. See 'l'cm. Exodus Giffin George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentclry on Numbers (N.Y., 1906: International Critical Commentary). Elijah ben Solomon Zalman ("Elijah Gaon" or "Vilna Gaon"), 1720-1797. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887), for M., and from standard text of Tos. Tohorot in Babylonian Talmud, for Tos. Mayer I. Gruber, "Red Heifer," Jl,ncyclopedia Judair:r 14:9-11. Sec SifHorovitz. Hon 'Ashir. Emanuel l;Iai b. Abraham Riqi. In Qev11J,1i 1,Ieforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1'>62), Vol. II. }:fagigah Hai Gaon, Perush ca/ Seder 'f ohorot (Berlin, 1856, repl'int 1970).

XII

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hal. HD

_

Hoffmann

-

Hor. Hul. ID

-

Jastrow

-

K

-

Kennedy

-

-

Katsh Kaufman

-

Kel. Kelemer Ker. Kil. KM

-

L

-

Lauterbach Lev. Lieberman, SZ Lieberman, TR

-

-

Lieberman, YK Lisowsky M M. MA (Mishnah Al;aronah) Ma. Ma. Er.

-

-

I;Iallah lfasde David. David Pardo, Sefer lfasde David, Part IV. Tosefet Merubah, vehu perush cal haTosefta Seder T ohorot. I. Kelim, Ahilot. II. Negacim, Parah, Niddah (Jerusalem, 1970). David Hoffmann, Mischnajot. VI. Ordnung Toharot. Punktiert, ins Deutsche iibersetzt, und erk/art (Wiesbaden, 1933). Horayot l:Iullin Imre Dacat. Nathan Lieberman. In Qevu1at Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962) Vol. VI. Marcus Jastrow, A Di.tionary of the Targumim, etc. (Reprint: N.Y. 1950). Georg Beer, Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A 50 (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1968). A. R. S. Kennedy, "Red Heifer," in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 4: 207-210. Abraham I. Katsh, Ginze Mishnah. One Hundred and FiftyNine Fragments from the Cairo Geniza in the Saltykoi-Schedrin Library in Leningrad (Jerusalem, 1970). Stephen A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Chicago, 1974). Kelim Jacob Kelemer, "Parah," Encyclopedia Judaica 13:87-8. Keritot KilaJyim Kesef Mishnah. Joseph Karo. Commentary to Maimonides, Mishnah Torah. Published in Venice, 1574-5. Text used: Standard version of Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. The Palestinian Talmud. Leiden MS. Cod. Seal. 3 A Facsimile of the original Manuscript. With Introduction by Saul Lieberman. (Jerusalem, 1970). For M. Hag. 2:5-7 and y. Hag. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, "Parah," Jewish Encyclopedia 9:520. Leviticus See SifLieberman Saul Lieberman, Tosefeth Rishonim. A Commentary. Based on Manuscripts of the Tosefta and Works of the Rishonim and Midrashim and Rare Editions. III. Kelim-Niddah. IV. Mikwaoth-Uktzin (Jerusalem, 1939). Saul Lieberman[n], HaY erushalmi Kifshufo (Jerusalem, 1934) Part I, Vol. 1. See Tos. Reng. Babylonian Talmud Codex Munich (95). (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1971). Mishnah. Ephraim Isaac of Premysla. Published in 1882. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Macaserot Mishnayot Macaseh Ereg-Pene Zaqqen. By Yi~l;iaqYehudah Yel;iiel Safrin (Levov-Lemberg, 1862). Vol. VI. Professor Baruch M. Bokser kindly supplied this commentary.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Maharam

-

Maimonides

-

Maimonides, Red Heifer Mak. McCarthy

-

Me. Melamed

-

-

Men. Michaelis

-

Miq. ML

-

M.Q. M.S. MS

-

MT

-

N

-

Naz. Nid. Noth Num. Nusap

-

Oh. p

-

Pa Par. PB

-

Pes.

PZ Qid. QS Rabad R.H. Rosh RSS Sanh. Sens

-

-

-

-

= -

XIII

Meir hen Barukh of Rothenberg (1215-1293). For source, see Sens. Mishnah c;m Perush Rabbenu Moshe ben Maimon. Trans. Joseph David Qapp~. VI. Seder Tohorol (Jerusalem, 1968). The Code of Maimonides. Book Ten. The Book of Cleanness, trans. Herbert Danby (New Haven, 1954), pp. 95-146. Makshirin Dennis J. McCarthy, "Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice," Journal of Biblical Literature 1973, 92:205-210. MeCilah E. Z. Melamed, Hayyabas sheben midrashe halakhah lamishnah velatosefta (Jerusalem, 1967). Men~ot W. Michaelis, "Skenos," etc., in Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VII, pp. 368-393. Relevant to the Tent, but only in a general way. Miqva,ot Mishnah LaMelekh. Commentary to Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. Judah Rosannes. 1657-1727. MoCed Qatan Macaser Sheni Melekhet Shelomo. Shelomo bar Joshua Adeni, 1567-1625. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Mayim Tal;iorim. Judah Leh Edel Halevi of Bialystok, 5577 [= 1817]. From reprint of Mishnah in Babylonian Talmud. Mishnah c;m Perush HaRambam. Defus Rishon Napoli [5]252 (1492) (Jerusalem, 1970). Nazir Niddah Martin Noth, Numbers. A Commentary (Philadelphia, 1968). Numbers Y. N. Epstein, Mavo leNusab haMishnah (Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, 19542). Ohalot Shishah Sidre Mishnah. Ketav Y ad Parma DeRossi 138 (Jerusalem, 1970). Mishnah Ketav Y ad Paris. Paris 328-329 (Jerusalem, 1973). Parah Mishnah Codex Parma "B" DeRossi 497, Seder Teharoth. Introduction by M. Bar Asher (Jerusalem 1971). Pes~im Pene Zaqqen. For source, see Ma. Er. Qiddushin Qol Sofer. l;Iaim Sofer. From Qevufat Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962) Vol. VI. Supercommentary to Maimonides, Code. Rosh Hashanah Asher hen Yel;iiel, ca. 1250-1327. For source, see Sens. See Strashun. Sanhedrin Samson hen Abraham of Sens, ca. 1150-1230. From reprint of Mishnah Seder Tohorot in Babylonian Talmud, Romm ed. (Vilna, 1887).

XIV

ABBREVIATIONS

Shah. Shav. Shev. SifEpstein

-

SifHillel

-

-

SifHorovitz

SifishShalom

-

SifLieberman

-

SifNe~iv SifPardo

-

SifVolk

-

SifYasq

-

Slotki

-

Snaith Sot. Strashun Strikovsky

-

Suk. T

-

T.

-

Ta. Tan.

Tem. Ter. Ti£. Jacob Toh. Tos. Reng.

-

-

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Shabbat Shavucot Shevi'it Y. N. Epstein, "Sifre Zuita Parashat Parah," Tarbi1 1, 1930, pp. 46-78. Sifre ... 'lm Perush ... Rabbenu Hillel bar Eliaqim, Ed. Shachne Koleditzky (Jerusalem, 1948). Siphre d' Be Rab. Fasciculus primus: Siphre ad Numeros adjecto Siphre zutta. Ed. H. S. Horovitz (Leipzig, 1917). Page and line references are to to this edition. Sifre deve Rav. CZm Tosafot Meir CAyin. Ed. Meir IshShalom (Friedman). (Vienna, 1864. Reprint N.Y., 1948). Siphre Zutta (The Midrash of Lydda). II. The Talmud of Caesarea (N.Y., 1968). Sifre ... CEmeq HaNe 1iv. Naftali ~evi Yehudah Berlin. (Jerusalem, 1960). Vol. II. Sefer Sifre deve Rav. David Pardo (Salonika, 1799. Reprint Jerusalem, 1970). I-II. Sifre .. . czm Hagahot .. . HaGRA ve'im Perush Keter Kehunah. $evi Hirsch HaKohen Volk. Ed. Yacaqov HaKohen Volk (Jerusalem, 1954). I-II. Sifre Zutfa leSeder Bamidbar ... JAmbuhaJ deSifre. Ya'aqov ZeJev Yasqovitz (Lodz, 1929. Reprint Bene Beraq, 1967). I-II. Israel W. Slotki, Parah. Translated into English with Notes in I. Epstein, ed. The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Tohoroth (London, 1948: The Soncino Press) pp. 300-354. N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (London, 1967). Sotah Samuel ben Joseph Strashun, 1794-1872. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Arie Strikovsky, "Red Heifer. In the Talmud," Encyclopedia Judaica 14:11-13. Sukkah Sidre Mishnah. Neziqin, Qodoshin, Tohorot. Ketav Yad Y erushalayim, 1336. Ketav Y ad beniqud lefi Massoret Teman. (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1970). Introduction by S. Morag. Tosefta Tancanit Y. N. Epstein, Mevo 0 ot ieSifr111Hatann,Pim. Mishnah, Tosefta uMidrashe Halakhah. Edited by E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957). Temurah Terumot Tiferet Yacaqov. Jacob $evi Shapira. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tohorot Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, ed., Rabbinische T exte. Erste Reihe. Die Tosefta Text, Vbersetzung, Erklarung. Herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel und Karl Heinrich Rengstorf. Band 6. Seder Toharot. Text, Vbersetzung, Erklarung. Kelim, Ahilot. Edited by Water Windfuhr. Toharot-Uksin, edited by

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tos. Zuck.

-

Tosaf. T.Y. TYB TYT

-

TYY

-

TR

Uqs. V

-

y.

-

Y.T. Yad. Yev.

ZA

Zab. Zev.

-

xv

Gerhard Lisowsky, Giinter Mayer, Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, and Emanuel Schereschewsky. (Stuttgart, 1953-1967). T. Par. is the work of Gerhard Lisowsky. T osephta. Based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices, with parallels and variants, by M. S. Zuckermandel (Repr. Jerusalem, 1963). Tosafot. From reprint of Babylonian Talmud, ed. Romm. See Lieberman, TR 'fevul Yorn Tiferet Yisrael, Boaz. See TYY. Tosafot Yorn 'fov. Yorn 'fov Lipmann Heller, 1579-1654. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tiferet Yisrael, Yakhin. Israel ben Gedaliah Lipschiitz, 1782-1860. (With supercommentary of Baruch Isaac Lipschutz = TYB), from reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. cuq~in Seder Tohorot 'im Perush... Moshe bar Maimon. Nidpas tat yede Daniel Bomberg Bishenat 5282 [ = 1522}. Venezia. (Venice, 1522. Reprint: Jerusalem, 1971). Yerushalmi. Palestinian Talmud. Yom Tov Yadayim Yevamot Zera' Avraham. Seder Tohorot. Ya'aqov Binyamin ZeJev Kahana Yakimovsky (Vilna, 1913). Supplied by Dr. Charles Berlin, Harvard College Library. Zabim Zeval;iim

TRANSLI1"'ERATIONS

l

- B - G

'i

-

:,

-

1/t

:i

·-

n

-

~

7 1,

~

D H

w z I:I

Cl ?:I=

- s ~ ti =, - p r ~= $ p - Q

0

., iz,

=

n

=

N

l=

- r - y

K L

M

tv

-

R

- s

- s - T

INTRODUCTION The tractate Parah, on the sacrifice of the red cow and preparation of purification-water (Numbers 19:1-10), is located in the Order of Purities, rather than the Order of Holy Things, where one might expect to find it, because the purification-water is used for the removal of corpse-impurity. Hence the theme of the tractate-cleannessaccords with that of our Order as a whole. Furthermore, the rites of the Order of Holy Things take place inside the Temple, while the rite of burning the red cow takes place outside of the Temple, on the Mount of Olives. The larger concern of our Order, for the purity of the profane world beyond the limits of the cult, encompasses the present tractate and accounts for its location. The biblical f?a!faJt,the expiatory sacrifice, usually is reserved for expiating offenses by the chief priest or the community as a whole. 1 Levine comments, "Its utilization here is due to the unusual seriousness of contact with dead bodies in the priestly conception of purity." Levine explains why the f?artaJt,consisting of a red cow, was provided by the Israelites, and not by the priesthood: The logic is clear. The prescribed purificatory rites were not necessitated exclusively, or even largely, by the priests, who were cautious about contact with dead human bodies, but by the contamination of Israelites, usually resulting from inadvertent carelessness. The contamination through contact with dead bodies falls into the category projected in Leviticus 4:13, i.e., offenses committed by the entire community, offenses whose seriousness affected the entire community. In such cases, the victims were to be supplied by the people as a whole .... 2

We may add that the sacrifice was carried out not in the Temple, but outside of it, that is, among and within the people as a whole. Commentators on Numbers Chapter Nineteen unanimously agree that the rite is old and originally "magical." Since our tractate shows remarkably little interest in the origins of the rite and simply takes for granted that it is to be done exactly the way Scripture requires and 1 Baruch A. Levine, "Numbers, Book of," Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplement. In press. 2 Baruch A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord. A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (Leiden, 1974), p. 106. I

2

INTRO DU CTI at,

accomplishes precisely what Scripture claims, it suffices to cite a single, comprehensive opinion. A. R. S. Kennedy, on the origin and significance of the rite, states: Although the chapter before us may, or rather must, have assumed its present form at a comparatively late period, the essential part of the ceremony of lustration may be confidently affirmed to be of extreme antiquity, for the mystery attaching to the beginning and the end of life, and to the blood as the vehicle of life, has impressed mankind from the earliest days. In all forms of primitiYe religious thought a dead body is conceived as a source of real, if undefined, danger to all in proximity to it. Itself in the highest degree unclean, in modern phrase taboo, it becomes an active source of uncleanness, and renders taboo everyone and everything about it. These death taboos, as they may be called, were in full force among the ancient Hebrews, as among the other nations of antiquity, and the means used to remove the taboo were to a large extent identical. Primarily, as Robertson Smith has pointed out, 'purification means the application to the person of some medium which removes a taboo, and enables a person to mingle freely in the ordinary life of his fellows.' The most widely distributed medium is, of course, water, but for aggravated cases of uncleanness this medium was supposed to acl1uire increased potency through the addition of ashes. Here, then, we have the origin of the essential part of the Hebrew rite. Closely connected with this circle of ideas is the universal belief of primitive man that sickness and death are caused by harmful and malevolent spirits whose anger he has incurred. An interesting survival of this primitive mode of thought may, we venture to think, be found in the ritual of the red heifer. Much labored ingenuity has been expended in finding suitable symbolic meanings for each of the 'cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet' which were added to the burning pyre. According to some, cedar, hastily assumed to be the majestic cedar of Lebanon, is the symbol of pride, as hyssop of humility; according to others, cedar, the incorruptible wood, was chosen 'as typical of eternity of life, hyssop of purification from the power of death, and scarlet thread to show the intensity of life in the red heifer.' The true explanation, it seems to us, is to be found in the primitive conception referred to above. We have here a meaningless survival, of which innumerable parallels will occur to students of comparative religion, from the time when the fragrant woods, such as juniper and cypress and the aromatic plants of the mint family, were supposed to act :ts a protection against the harmful unseen powers that were the cause of death and hovered about the dead. The scarlet cloth is to be explained either by the fact that a special healing virtue was assigned in antiquity to the scarlet dye or by the universally prevalent idea of red, the color of the sacred blood, as the taboo color pc1r excellence. The line of thought along which we have sought to explain this confessedly difficult part of the ritual, to the exclusion of the

INTRODUCTION

3

advanced symbolicalinterpretation hitherto current, finds further justification in the use of a sprinkler, consisting of a bunch of hyssop, tied to a handle of juniper wood by a similar strip of scarlet cloth, in sprinkling a house, as well as a person, that was to be declared free from the plague of leprosy (Lv. 14:51ff.). While we have thus endeavored to trace the origin of the ritual of the red heifer to its source in an atmosphere of primitive religious thought common to the Hebrews of the pre-Mosaic age with other races on a similar plane of development, it must not be forgotten that the rite received a higher and fuller interpretation in being admitted into the circle of the priestly legislation of the post-exilic age. Uncleanness and sin, sin and death, are now associated ideas. The red heifer has become a sin-offering (vv. 9, 17) of a unique kind; part of the blood is sprinkled towards the dwelling-place of Yahweh, from whose worship those •unclean from the dead' are temporarily excluded, the rest is burned with the victim to heighten the expiatory efficacy of the ashes. The rite in all its details becomes a powerful objectlesson, teaching the eternal truth that a holy God can be served only by a holy people. 3 The laws of the red cow are supposed to be laden with mysteries and paradoxes. Numbers Rabbah 19:1, for example, points to the following: "The persons engaged in any part of the preparation of the red cow from beginning to end defile garments ( = M. 4:4), while the cow itself makes garments clean." The same pericope juxtaposes Num. 19:2, This is the statute... , with Job 14:4, Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? is it not One?, with the notion that while the red cow conveys uncleanness to the clothing of those that prepare it, the result of the preparation is to produce cleanness. These impenetrable mysteries do not form a focus of interest in our tractate. Neither Mishnah-Tosefta nor Sifre Numbers-Sifre Zutta pays attention to them, being concerned with a quite separate agendum. Let us now briefly review the organization and redaction of the large units of our tractate. First, we distinguish among the major thematic and conceptual divisions of the tractate. Second, we review the thematic materials of the several chapters. Third, we ask about the relationship of each chapter to the preceding and following ones. Finally, we survey the sequence of ideas and problems in the tractate, showing how they are tied together as a whole.

3 A. R. S. Kennedy, "Red Heifer," Hasting' s Dictionary of the Bible, IV, pp. 205-210. Note also George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (N.Y., 1906), pp. 241-256.

4

INTRODUCTION

I.

The Red Cow Defined. 1:1-2:5 A. Age, origin. Eliezer: Heifer/one year old, cow/two. 1:lA-C: Sages: Heifer/two, cow/three.+ 1:1D-E: Meir. Extraneous materials: 1:lF-Y, 1:2, 3, 4. Eliezer: Pregnant cow is suitable. 2:lA-B: Sages: Pregnant cow is not suitable. Eliezer: It is not purchased from gentiles. 2:IC-D: Sages: It is purchased from gentiles. Extraneous materials: 2:lE-I. B. Blemishes.

2:2: One may chop off blemished horns, hooves. Eyeball, teeth, tongue do not constitute blemishes. Dwarf suitable. + Dispute: Judah vs. Simeon. 2:3A-C: Cow born of Caesarean section, harlot's hire, price of dog are unfit. Eliezer: fit. 2:3D: Blemishes which render Holy Things unfit render cow unfit. 2:3E-G, 2:4: Acts of labor which render cow unfit. Judah's c1ualification of rule. 2:5: Unfit hair. Removing unfit hair.

The tractatc opens with the definition of the red cow which is to be burned, but makes no pretense at introducing its rules, let alone the law as a whole, with a well-formed procm. Indeed, we have for Parah neither a proem nor a conclusion; the tractate commences and concludes without formality. Yet the fundamental character of the opening rules is clear: a four-part pcricope of Eliezer i r. sages, at M. 1: lA-C, 2:lA-B, 2:lC-D, and 2:3A-C, on how old the cow is to be, whether it may be pregnant, whether it may be purchased from gentiles, and whether it is subject to Temple rules of ao1uisition. The first set is richly augmented with thematically tangential materials, the second set is given briefly, and the third set again is enriched with extraneous materials. Eliezer's set of four rules implicitly introduces one major theme of the tractate as a whole, whether the cow is subject to the laws governing sacrifice in the cult of the Temple. For Eliezer's position consistently is that the red cow, sacrificed outside of the Temple on the Mount of Olives, is exempt from the Temple rules on Holy Things, their definition, acquisition, and suitability, and sages, in disagreeing, subject the red cow to the rules of Holy Things offered up in the Temple. This unit appropriately stands at tlic beginning of the tractate, for, as we shall see, the issue recurs in various ways among the Ushans, culminating in the primary question of whether

INTRODUCTION

5

the red cow is subject to the purity-laws of the cult or to lower or higher requirements of cleanness. M. 2:2, 3D, 4, and 5 present concrete and detailed laws, well situated with Eliezer's set, but not of equivalently basic character. 2:3D contradicts Eliezer's tendency. Since acts of labor do not render Holy Things unfit, and since that very matter runs on and on, 2:3D-2:4 form a very important unit. II.

The Conduct of the Rite. A Narrative. 3:1-11 A. Purification of the Priest: 3:1-4. 3:1: Priest who burns the cow is separated from his wife, sprinkled daily. Yose glosses. l:fananiah Prefect of the Priests states an autonomous rule. 3: 2: Priests raised in perfect purity for the rite. Water is drawn in perfect purity by perfectly pure priest. Yose glosses. 3:3: Ash is mixed into the water in perfect purity, not touched by human hands. Yose glosses. B. Purification-rite must be performed with intent specifically for the rite in hand. Preparations for one slaughter do not serve for some other. [ vs. Eliezer, 4: 1.} 3:4: As stated. 3:4B-C: Dispute of Yose the Galilean and cAqiva on sprinkling the young priests of M. 3:2. C. Intruded detail, the collected ashes of previously burned cows (M. 3:lB) now explained. Who burned cows? 3:5: Meir (seven done in past) vs. sages (nine done in past). D. Moving cow and priests (M. 3:1-2) from Temple Mount to Mount of Olives. 3:6: Causeway. 3:7A-E: Only the cow to be slaughtered is brought out. Yose glosses. E. Priest then made unclean. 3:7F: The priest is made unclean and immerses. He is now in the status of one awaiting sunset for the completion of his purification (T evul Y om) and not completely clean. In that status, he performs the rite. 3:8A-B: The priest is made unclean and immerses. F. The pyre. 3:8C-D: Pyre constructed of various kinds of wood, with foreside facing Temple. G. The slaughter. 3:9A: Cow placed on pyre. 3:9B-E: Slaughter, blood received, sprinkled toward Temple. Judah glosses. 3:9F-G + H: Blood sprinkled. 3:91: Remnants of blood wiped onto cow. 3:9J-K: Fire kindled. cAqiva glosses.

6

INTRODUCTION

H. Cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool thrown into cow. 3:lOA-E, 3:llF: Three objects bound together and thrown into cow when it bursts. I. Preparation and disposition of ash. 3:llG-H: Ashes are beaten and sifted. Ishmael glosses. 3:llK-N: Ashes divided in three parts, put away on rampart, Mount of Olives, divided among priests for use.

The next unit is a fairly smooth narrative, through the whole of Chapter Three, on the preparation of the priest who burns the cow, the positioning and slaughter of the cow, and the disposition of the ashes. While a closer look at the chapter will show important formal and substantive differences between its major units, 3:1-7E, 3:7F-3:ll, the narrative as a whole is smooth and follows a natural sequence, beginning to end of the rite. Slight effort is made to state the laws as generalizations, let alone through disputes; the norms are to be discerned in the context of the narrative. III. The Condrtct of the I?ite. Laws. 4:1-4. A. The cow is ( not) subject to the laws of the sanctuary. 4:lA-G: It must be slaughtered "for its own name." Eliezer: It need not be slaughtered as a cow of purification. 4:lH-I: It must be slaughtered by a priest whose hands are washed. Eliezer: It need not be slaughtered by a priest whose hands are washed. 4:lJ-K: It must be slaughtered by the high priest. Judah: It need not be slaughtered by the high priest. 4:lL-M: The priest must wear proper garments-white ones. B. It must be burned in its pit. 4:2A. C. Sprinkling the blood. 4:2B: Blood must be sprinkled toward the door of the Holy of Holies. 4:2C-D: Dipping, then sprinkling, seven times. D. Burning the cow. 4:3A: No special wood required. E. Flaying the cow. 4:3B: Cow may be flayed. F. Slaughter with wrong intention ( = A). 4:3C-D: Wrong intention spoils the rite, as it does the Temple rites. Eliezer: Intention does not spoil the rite in the case of the cow. G. Acts of extraneous labor. Contamination. 4:4A: Throughout the rite, if a person involved in the process does an act of labor extraneous to the rite, he spoils the rite. Whatever he touches is made unclean.

+/-

INTRODUCTION

7

4:4B-E: The contamination effected by such a person depends on the acceptabilityof the rite. H. General rules on the rite. 4:4F: Sacrilege applies. Wood added anytime. 4:4G: Rite done by day, by priest. I. Reprise of A. 4:4H-I: Extraneous act of labor spoils the rite until cow is turned into ashes, spoils the water until ashes are added to it. Having presented a narrative on the conduct of the rite, the tractate then goes over much the same ground, now giving the rules in the form of generalizations and apodictic laws, rather than through a narrative. The issue important to Eliezer-whether the laws of the sanctuary apply to this rite which is conducted outside of the sanctuary-recurs at A, F, G, and I. Details are added at B, C, D, E. H is difficult to interpret. If Eliezer holds that the rules of the cult in the Temple do not apply, then he may well rule that the law of sacrilege does not apply, the priest need not carry out the actual slaughter (as Num. 19:1-10 suggest), and the rite may be done by night. But we have no such rulings in his name. Accordingly, the items, at H probably are routine, carrying no implications about larger issues. IV. The Purity of Utensils Used in the Rite. 5:1-4. A. The utensil must be guarded even from the time before it is susceptible to uncleanness. Judah: That is not so. All are believed--even ordinary folk-to be concerned with the purity of the rite of burning the red cow, 5:lA-C. 5:1D-G: Extraneous materials: heave-offering. B. Immersing a utensil used for the purification-rite. 5:2: If the water is not suitable for mixing with ashes, it must be dried off. If it is acceptable for mixing, the utensil need not be dried off before acceptablewater is put in and ashes are added. 5:3: A pumpkin, which absorbs water: we do not take account of absorbed water if the water is unfit for the rite, but we do if it is unclean. vs. Joshua. C. The reed used for collecting ashes. 5:4: We cut the reed and immerse it-Eliezer. Joshua: We make it unclean, then immerse it. Clearly, the two distinct conceptions on the purity required for the rite, given in Chapter Three, are carried forward in the present unit. The dispute of 5:lA-C is whether we rely on ordinary people to preserve the cleanness of objects used for the purification-rite. Judah

8

INTRODUCTION

holds that we do. At 5 :4 we wish to know whether everything used in the rite is to be in the status of that which is immersed on the self-same day and requires sunset for the completion of the process of purification. Joshua holds that that is required, in line with M. 3:7, and Eliezer says that we preserve the rite in conditions of perfect purity, thus cutting the reed, which, when in the ground, is insusceptible to impurity, and forthwith immersing it, so establishing its purity for the rite, without an intervening step of contamination, then immersion. Accordingly, Eliezer in general will stand behind the theory of M. 3:1-6, and Joshua clearly concurs with M. 3:7-11. The middle unit, M. 5 :2-3, is relevant in theme, but not in principle. V.

Utensils Used in the Rite. 5:5-9 A. The mixing of ashes into the water takes place in a whole utensil. 5:5A-D: Any sort of utensil may be used, but not sherds. 5:5E-F: Extraneous materials. 5:6: Egg of potters, egg of hens-two Ushan disputes. B. Troughs used for mixing. 5:7: Trough hewn in the rock is not an autonomous utensil, so cannot be used. But one attached to the ground may be used. Various clarifications of detail. 5:8: Two troughs which are conjoined-water of one is not mixed when ashes are added to the other, unless water flows from one to the other. 5:9: Two troughs which are conjoined-water in the space between them is not mixed when water in one or another is mixed with ashes.

Having dealt with the reed, we move on to the utensils in which water and ashes are mixed. The rules are straightforward. We must have a whole, autonomous utensil. The triplet, M. 5 :7-9, then deals with the trough and its subdivisions. VI. Mixing the Ash and Water. 6:1-3 A. The mixing of the ash into the water must be intentional. 6:lA-E, F: The person's own action must be involved. 6:lG-L: Action extraneous to the mixing spoils the water but not the ash. B. Retrieving ash for further use. 6:2: Ash can be reused if it is excessive, so Meir + Simeon. Sages: Whatever has touched the water cannot be used again. C. Water-and-ash mixture are presumed to enter a narrow-mouthed flask. 6:3A-C.

INTRODUCTION

9

The progression is logical and orderly. Once we have defined the utensils to be used in the process of mixing ash into the water ( sanctification-QYDWS), we explain the conditions under which the mixing takes place. One must mix intentionally, by his own action. B and C are minor matters. The issue of B is whether we may use in another mixture ash which turns out, upon mixing, to be excessive. C is clear as stated. This unit concludes the discussion of the preparation of the ash and its mixing with water and forms a transition to the next major unit, on the preparation-drawing-of the water. VII. Drawing the Water. 6:3-8:1 A. Water must come from a utensil, not be squeezed out of a sponge. 6:3D-G: Water in a sponge is unfit for mixing. B. Water must be drawn by hand into a utensil. 6:4A-B: Water cannot merely be allowed to flow into a jar through a conduit. 6:4C: We must use an insusceptible conduit. 6:5: Water must be drawn with a utensil. C. Drawing of water followed by mixing of ashes into the water must not be interrupted by an act of labor extraneous to the rite. If it is, the water is spoiled. 7:1: Five people who drew five jars and then mixed them together, etc. These cases illustrate in a complicated way the principle of C. They also imply that intention is not taken into account. 7:2-3: Extraneous acts of labor spoil the water whether it belongs to the person who does the labor or to someone else, but work spoils one's own mixing, not that of someone else's ash and water. 7:4: The same principle is repeated in a further illustration. 7:5: If one draws water for himself and also for the purification-rite, he must take care not to do anything between drawing the water for the rite and mixing the ashes and must protect the water drawn for the rite. 7:6: Labor which is intrinsic to drawing the water for the rite is distinguished from labor which is tangential and not to be done. 7:7-8: The same matter. Yose glosses. 7:9: The same matter. Judah introduces a distinction. 7:10: The water does not leave the domain of the owner, so Eliezer. Anonymous: it does. This is developed in T. by Judah to introduce the issue of guardianship. 7: 11 : Labor essential to drawing the water distinguished from labor which spoils the water. Yose glosses. 7:12: The same. Intention is not taken into account.

10

IKTRODUCTION

D. If the water is guarded by two men, so long as one is a suit,1ble watchman, the water is acceptably guarded. 8: 1: Two examples.

If our tractate intended to lay out its themes in the order in which the rite is conducted, then the present unit should come before the previous one. For its interest is in the rules governing the drawing and the protection of the water to be used in the mixture. We should then have been told about the sort of water which may be used for the mixture, and only thereafter the process of mixing ash into the water should have been described. At the end I shall account for this reversal. The laws on the protection of the water are highly complex and well developed, forming the largest single thematic unit of the tractate, and constituting part of its main theme, which is the protection of the rite from thoughtless spoilage through either contamination ( Chapter Ten) or work extraneous to the process of carrying out the rite, which will distract the officiating authorities and, presumably, lead to contamination. The matter of drawing the water is divided into three principles, the first two of them undeveloped. The water must come from a utensil, not be squeezed from a sponge. It must be drawn by hand into a utensil. The main problem, C, has to do with labor which renders the water unfit for the rite, that is, an act of labor not required for the drawing of the water or the mixing of the ashes into it. The principle is that such an act of extraneous labor may not intervene between the drawing of the water and the mixing of the ashes. This is greatly developed through complicated illustrations, made still more complex by T. The tendency of the lawyers is to introduce further considerations, in particular the matter of proper guardianship of the water. But the primary issue remains that of not spoiling the drawn water by doing an extraneous act of labor before mixing ashes into it. Clearly, the ''reason" to be adduced for that rule is that the act of labor will divert attention from the proper guardianship of the water. But by itself the rule simply is that an act of labor cannot intervene, as I said. The definition of permissible acts-those involved in the drawing and transport of the water-and acts which spoil the water is well worked out by both Y avneans and U sh ans. VIII. Extraneo11s i'rfatter. 8:2-8 A. The one who mixes ashes into water should not wear a sandal, because if liquid falls on the sandal, the sandal is made unclean and it makes the man unclean.

11

INTRODUCTION

8:2: The man says to the clothing, What makes you unclean cannot make me unclean, but you made me unclean. 8: 3-7: Further cases illustrating the same apophthegm. B. All seas are like a pool, Meir. Judah: The Mediterranean alone is like a pool. Yose: Seas when running are like springs but cannot be used for the cow. 8:8.

This unit is relevant to our tractate only at 8:2. The remainder of the materials are assembled because all make use of the same apophthegm. The apophthegmatic structure recurs at T. Hag., no more relevant to that tractate than to this one, and is a way of organizing materials which is used very sparingly in our order. T. presents variations on the apophthegm. 8:8 is equally tangential to our tractate, but serves to introduce what follows, another fine transition, like 6:1-3.

+

IX. Water Used for the Rite. 8:9-11, 9:1-6 9:7 A. Spring-water is to be used. It must be sweet, flow regularly, not be mixed. 8:9-10: Judah glosses. 8: 11: If color of water changed naturally, the water is fit. Judah glosses. Autonomous dispute of cAqiva and Ishmael. B. If unfit water fell into fit water, it can be removed, so Eliezer. Sages: It cannot. 9:lA-F. 9: 1G-I: If unacceptable liquid fell into the flask, it is to be emptied out and dried off, etc. C. If an insect fell into water and burst or imparted a color to the water, it is unfit, 9:2. Simeon and Eliezer b. Jacob gloss. D. If an animal left spittle in the water, it is unfit, 9:3. Gamaliel and Eliezer gloss. E. An unacceptable intention does ( not) spoil the water. 9:4: Eliezer and Joshua dispute. Eliezer rules mere intent can spoil the water. Yose revises the terms of the dispute. F. Unfit water and its disposition. 9:5A-D: It should not be mixed in mud. Judah: It is annulled. 9:5E-H: If a cow drank it, it is unclean for twenty-four hours. Judah: as above. G. Protection of water and ash. 9:6: A singleton. The water and ash should not be transported in a ship. H. Mixture of suitable and unsuitable ash. 9:7: A singleton. Eliezer says it can be used. Anonymous rule: Not mixed with water.

+

+/-

12

INTRODUCTION

The issue of Unit VII, actions which spoil the water when it is drawn for the rite, now is carried forward, the sort of water which may be drawn for the rite and how it may be spoiled and made unacceptable to the rite. The sources of the water are defined, A. B-D deal with admixtures of unsuitable liquids, a logical development. E is conceptually separate from its setting, but rephrases the issue of B. F, G, and H are related only in their interest in the disposition of the water and the ash, unfit water, unfit ash, transport of the fit water and fit ash. They are tacked on, each a singleton. X.

Uncleanness and the Purificdtion-Rite. 9:8-9, 10:1-6, 11:1-6.

A. Capacity of unfit water, ash, to convey uncleanness. 9:8: Unfit water renders person clean for heave-offering unclean. Unclean purification-water renders unclean a person clean for heave-offering however it touches him, but does so to one dean for our rite only if it touches his hand. 9:9: Ash has the same effect as unfit water. B. What can contnct midras-uncleanness is regarded as unclean with mr1dd,1f-uncleannessso far as the purification-rite is concerned. 10: 1: Eliezer and Joshua further dispute whether the same rule applies to objects susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. Joshua says it does. 10:2: Maddaf-uncleanness is conveyed by touch as well as moving. Food and liquid contaminates when touched by hand, not body. Joshua: Also by moving, not actual contact. C. The water must be kept in a clean place. 10:3: Eliezer: This means a clean jar. Sages: This means the location of the jar. 10:4-5: cAgiva's formulation of the same principle as Eliezer's. D. Joshua's view, 10:1-2, illustrated in seven cases. E. Doubts in cleanness of the purification-rite. 11 : 1: If a jar is left uncovered and found covered, it is unfit. We assume an unclean man has covered it. If it is left covered and found uncovered, it is unfit. \'Ve assume an animal has drunk from it. 11:2: Matters of doubt resolved in favor of cleanness in heaveoffering are similarly resolved in purification-rite. F. Heave-offering which fell into purification-water. 11: 3: If the heave-offering is susceptible to uncleanness, it renders the water unclean, etc. Glossed by Yose. G. An extraneous unit. 11:4-6: The sole point relevant to our tractate is at 11:6, Meir's and sages' dispute on how uncleanness is conveyed in purification-rite.

INTRODUCTION

13

Unit X introduces a new set of problems, the degree of cleanness required for the purification-rite, and, in particular, the ways in which uncleanness is conveyed to various aspects of the rite. There is no logical or thematic connection to what has gone before. The development of the law on the slaughter of the cow, the drawing of the water, and the mixing of the water and the ash is complex. A new range of issues and problems now commences. The first (A) has to do with the capacity of the water and ash when unfit or unclean to convey uncleanness to other objects or to persons. Then we ask at great length about conveying uncleanness to persons or objects employed in the rite, the opposite side of the same coin. The main point, B, is that what can become unclean with midras-uncleanness is regarded as already unclean with maddaf-uncleanness so far as the rite is concerned. The sole open question is whether the same principle applies to what can become unclean with corpse-uncleanness but not with midras-uncleanness. Joshua holds that this is the case, and D illustrates his principle. The point of C has to do with keeping the water in a clean place. Eliezer takes this to mean the jar must be clean, insusceptible to uncleanness. cAqiva' s conception accords with his. The next chapter, falling within the same thematic unit, introduces matters of doubt in respect to the cleanness of the purification-rite. First we have an illustration of the matter, second a general statement. As before, the concluding segments of the unit are episodic and not tightly tied to what has gone before. G is one of those large pericopae without a close connection to our tractate at all, formulated along the lines of a careful formal structure, and inserted here because of a tengential relationship to the issue of how uncleanness is conveyed to persons involved in the purification-rite. XI. Hyssop for Sprinkling. 11:7-9, 12:1 A. What sort of hyssop is used. ll:7A-C: Varieties. 11:7D-F: Heave-offering. B. What part of hyssop is used in sprinkling. ll:7G-K: Eliezer glosses. C. Uncleanness and the hyssop. 11:8: If hyssop is gathered for food, liquid renders it susceptible, if for fire, it does not. If for purification-rite, dispute, Meir vs. Simeon, Judah, Yose. D. Hyssop defined: three stalks, three buds, etc. 11:9: Versions of Judah, Yose. E. If hyssop is too short to dip into the water. 12:1: One hangs it down by a strip. Judah and Simeon: Not permitted.

14

INTRODUCTION

The present unit begins the concluding section of the tractate, the use of the purification-water for the process of decontamination. The subdivisions are discrete; after B there is no logical sequence. XII. The Rules of Sprinkling. 12:2-11 A. Doubts as to sprinkling are resolved strictly. 12:2A-C, D-E, F-H, 1-K, etc.: Various examples. B. Sprinkling requires the proper intent of the one who does the sprinkling. 12:2/O-T: Two illustrations. 12: 3: If one intended the right deed but did the wrong act, the sprinkling is not valid, but the water on the hyssop remains valid and the hyssop need not be redipped. If the intention is invalid, the water is no good and the hyssop must be redipped. C. Doubts as to sprinkling in the public domain are resolved leniently, in the private domain, strictly. 12:4A-D: Examples. D. Purification-water which has carried out its proper function, having been sprinkled, no longer conveys uncleanness. 12:4E-F: The rule stated. 12:5A-B: The rule illustrated. 12:5C-E: Gloss of illustration (how much water is sufficient for sprinkling). E. Sprinkling with an unclean hyssop. 12:6A-E: If the hyssop is of sufficient size, water is unfit and sprinkling is unfit. If not, water is fit, sprinkling is unfit. F. We do not reckon degrees of uncleanness in the purificationrite. 12:6F, 12:7, 12:8A-D: Various illustrations. G. Connection for uncleanness and for sprinkling. 12:8E-L, 12:9: Various objects specified: how we sprinkle on their several parts. 12:l0A-C: Houses' dispute. H. Who may sprinkle. 12:lOD-G: Woman may not. Child capable of proper intention may sprinkle. Woman may help. I. When sprinkling may take place. 12:1 lA-D: Dip and sprinkle by day, etc.

The concluding unit is a potpourri of rules, all relevant to a single topic but none closely tied to what precedes or follows it. A and C belong together. B is clear about the issue of intention, a requirement for the person who does the sprinkling, and this issue is reintroduced at H. The capacity of purification-water which has carried out its function to render something unclean is dealt with rapidly at D. The

15

INTRODUCTION

use of an unclean hyssop follows. F and G do relate to one another. The point of F is that while, for heave-offering, we take account of the diminution of the capacity of a Father of uncleanness to convey uncleanness through a series of contacts, ( thus: contact with the Father, then with something which has touched the Father [ = first remove}, then with something which has touched something which has touched the Father [ = second remove}), we do not do so in respect to the purification-rite. Touching anything which has touched something unclean, however many contacts removed from the original source, or Father, of uncleanness, produces uncleanness. Connection follows naturally, that is, the affect of various parts of an object upon one another, both as to conveying uncleanness and as to conveying cleanness if one sprinkles upon one part and not another. The issue of I is scarcely developed, and at that point, the tractate simply ends. The twelve clearly distinct units therefore form the following eight thematic divisions: I. The Selection and Conduct of the Rite of Burning the Cow 1:1-2:5, 3:1-11, 4:1-4 ( = I-III) II. Utensils Used in the Rite and their Purity 5:1-4, 5:5-9 ( = IV-V) III. Mixing the Ash and the Water 6:1-3 ( = VI) IV. Drawing the Water 6:3-8:1 (= VII) V. Intruded Apophthegmatic Unit 8:2-8 (VIII) VI. Water Used for the Rite 8:9-9:7 (IX) VII. Uncleanness and the Purification-Rite 9:8-11:6 (X) VIII. The Rite of Sprinkling: Hyssop and How It is Dipped and Used 11:7-12:11 (XI-XII)

Since 8:2-8 begins with attention to the affects of purification-water on the clothing and person of the one who is involved in the rite, in point of fact, from 6:1 through 9:7 we consider, from various perspectives, issues of the water used for the mixing of ash and water, and so we have the following sequence: 1. The creation of the purification-ash 3. The provision of the purification-water

1:1-5:9 6:3-9:7

16

INTRODUCTION

And those two large divisions are joined by the little transition of (2) 6:1-3. I am inclined to think that is no accident. The ultimate redactor has arranged his chapters with good and careful logic. Then he appended two relevant units, the matter of uncleanness, and the disposition of the water in sprinkling, 9:8-11:6, and 11:7-12:11, respectively. If he had included these large units earlier, he would have spoiled his elegant sequence, ( 1) ash, ( 2) ash-and-water, ( 3) water. He had no choice but to place his uncleanness-materials either at the outset, before the definition of the cow which is used for the rite, or at the end, after treating the matter of how the water is sprinkled. Putting the issue of uncleanness first would have made for an odd arrangement, since we are told about the contamination of a rite which has not yet been defined. To be sure it would have been a logical beginning, just as Kelim starts with the rules of the contamination of utensils, and only then tells us about utensils which may suffer uncleanness. But I think he had no serious choice in respect to placing his uncleanness-materials at the very end. There they would have formed a useless appendage, since we shall have already been told about the use of the water, and only afterward informed about rules of the uncleanness of the rite. Accordingly, while the matter of uncleanness intrudes between the rite and the use of the product of the rite, it nonetheless is well situated. And the conclusion, 11 :7-12 :11, is sensibly placed right where it belongs, just as M. Negaim Chapter Fourteen provides an appropriate, if slightly awry, conclusion to its tractate. Overall, the large work of redactional arrangement of major thematic units of tradition seems to me the result of an orderly and thoughtful process, guided by attention to the temporal and logical sequence of the rite, beginning with the cow, ending with the sprinkling on an unclean person of its ashes mixed with water. Since the materials with which the ultimate redactor had to deal are clearly of a highly discrete and disparate character, we can only admire how he has put them together: 1. cow; 2. creation of the ash; 3. transition: mixing of ash with water; 4. water; 5. setting of rite: uncleanness; 6. use of the water-and-ash for purification. Having surveyed the themes and redactional structure of our tractate, let us now ask whether the Written Torah-Numbers 19:1-10, 17-18a, 21-22-has supplied the agendum for the predominant issues of the Oral Torah, Mishnah tractate Parah.

17

INTRODUCTION Scripture

Corresponding Pericope in Oral Torah

Pericope of Oral Torah without corresponding Scripture

19:1 Now the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron 19:2 This is the statute of the law which the Lord has commanded: Tell the people of Israel to bring you a red heifer, without defect, in which there is no blemish, and upon which a yoke has never come

1:lA-E, 2:lA-E, 2, 3, 4, 5

3:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 4:1, 3

19:3 And you shall give her to Eleazar the priest, and she shall be taken outside the camp and slaughtered before him. 19:4 And Eleazar the priest shall take some of her blood with his finger and sprinkle some of her blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times

3:9, 4:2

19:5 And the heifer shall be burned in his sight, her skin, her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall be burned. 19:6 And the priest shall take cedarwood and hyssop and scarlet stuff and cast them into the midst of the burning of the heifer.

3:10

19:7 Then the priest shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp; and the priest shall be unclean until evening.

4:4 (9:8-9)

19:8 He who burns the heifer shall wash his clothes in water and bathe his body in water, and shall be unclean until evening.

( 4:4) (9:8-9)

5:1, 10:1, 2, 4, 5, 6 11:2, 4, 5, 6

2

18

INTR!ODUCTION

19:9 And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the people of Israel for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin.

3:11, 10:3

19:10 And he who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. And this shall be to the people of Israel and to the stranger who sojourns among them a perpetual statute.

(1:4)

19: 17-lSa For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt purification-offcring and running water shall be added in a vessel. Then a clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water ...

8:8, 9-11 11:7, 8, 9 12:1, lOD-G, 11

5:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 6:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7:1, 2, ,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 8:1, 2 (3-7), 9:1, 2, 3, 4, 6,7,11:1,3 12:2, 3, 4A-E, 6, 7, 8, 9, lOA-C

19:21 And it shall be a per• pctual statute for them. He who sprinkles the water for impurity shall wash his clothes; and he who touches the water for impurity shall be unclean until evening.

(4:1), 12:5

9:5, 9:8, 9

(9:8-9)

8:2, l2:1F,

This rough and undifferentiated sketch shows that the interests of Mishnah and those of the Written Torah come together only at Num. 19:2, the selection of the cow to be burned, Num. 19:4, sprinkling the blood, and less clearly at Num. 19:7, 10, and 21, the uncleanness imparted by the rite to all who participate in it (priest who slaughters, he who gathers the ashes, and he who touches the water for impurity). M. 4:4 treats these very briefly, and the matter of the impurity imparted to a person who touches the purificationwater scarcely is important in M., though, to be sure, M. Kel. 1:1 takes for granted that a person who purposelessly touches the water or carries it is unclean. But, it is assumed in M. Parah, whoever makes use of the water in a proper purification-sprinkling is not made unclean (e.g., M. 12:4F, 12:5). In this respect the two Torahs

INTRODUCTION

19

seem to disagree with one another. Num. 19:17's reference to running water has corresponding materials in M., so too the selection and dipping of a hyssop into the water. And that, more or less, concludes the important points at which the interests of the two Torahs come together. To put it differently, our tractate's primary concerns, for example, precisely how the rite is carried on, Chapter Three, the acute degree of cleanness required of those who participate in the rite and how they become unclean, the comparison of the ways in which those clean for the purification-rite and those clean for heave-offering are made unclean, Chapters Five and Ten, and how the water used for the rite is to be drawn and protected, with special attention to not working between the drawing and the mixing, Chapters Six and Seven-all of these matters, which form the fundamental outline of our tractate, are not generated by Scripture. Simply reading the cited verses, the Written Torah, can have suggested to us in only a limited and paltry way the character, theoretical concerns, and legal issues of the Oral Torah. Except for the meagre effort of the Oral Torah to spell out a few of the requirements of the Written Torah, primarily at Chapters One and Two, also for the hyssop, Chapter Eleven, the two Torahs scarcely relate to one another. For just as it is striking to observe how little of the Oral Torah derives from or is generated by the Written Torah, so it is remarkable to realize that the Oral Torah, for its part, is rather indifferent to what is important to the Written Torah, e.g., 19:3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and so on. The stress of the Written Torah's account is on the sprinkling of the blood, alluded to by Mishnah virtually in passing, the burning of the heifer, the washing of the clothes and bathing of the body of the priest who slaughters the cow, of the one who burns the heifer, and of the one who gathers the ashes ( not mentioned at all). Where are the laws about the uncleanness of these parties? M. 4:4 rushes past the uncleanness of all who have been involved in the rite, in its haste to reach the real interest of the tractate, the cleanness required of all who are going to be involved in the rite, not to mention the mindfulness to be paid to the process of drawing the water, the fierce concern not to perform an extraneous act of labor throughout the conduct of the rite, and the like. Of our handful of verses, omitting 19:1 a total of 11, no fewer than four-19:7, 8, 10, and 21-refer to the impurity imparted by the cow to those who participate in the rite and by the water to those who touch it. So it is

20

INTRODUCTION

not only curious that the Oral Torah speaks about matters on which the Written Torah is silent. It is equally puzzHng that the Oral Torah does not address itself in detail to matters in which the Written Torah clearly is interested. These are matters to be considered further. Yet even now the paradox ref erred to at the outset, that the water imparts impurity to those that touch it (Num. 19:21) but purifies those who are unclean upon whom it is sprinkled (Num. 19:17, etc.), seems out of phase. For that paradox, clearly present in the Scripture and readily discerned by ( among others) the later rabbinical exegetes, in no way impresses the authorities behind Mishnah-Tosefta. To them, water which has served its purpose loses the power to contaminate. To be sure, purification-water before it is sprinkled must be carefully guarded and will impart impurity. But there is no paradox in that matter. The late first- and second-century rabbis took for granted that the rite of purification, the water used for mixing with the ashes, and the product of the rite-the mixture itself-had to be meticulously protected from uncleanness. That unnecessary contact with the water would impart uncleanness, just as would contact with the Written Torah itself, produced no sense of paradox. The single most striking divergence between the two Torahs, however, is in the indifference of the Written Torah to the degree of purity required for the rite, a matter of intense concern to the Oral Torah. The rite was conducted outside the tent of meeting, or the Temple of later times, so of course attention to the purity required for the rite to the priestly author and editor of the Scriptural pericope is superfluous. Yet it is that very matter-the issues of whether cleanness is required, whether it is perfect cleanness or diminished cleanness, whether it is cleanness of a degree higher than that required for other aspects of the cult or of the same degree or of a lower degree-that constitutes one of the two foci of our tractate. And the other is related, if not to begin with then surely by the Ushan authorities, to cleanness: not working after drawing the water and before mixing in the ashes, so that, as I said, the water is protected from anything that will spoil or make it unclean. But it is natural that the authorities of Mishnah should have been interested in the cleanness of a rite carried out outside of the Temple and its realm of cleanness and holiness, indeed, that they should have made that very issue the center of their Torah. For they legislated about cleanness in the unclean world outside of the cultic locus. The rabbis of the Oral Torah took for granted that cleanness is to be attained in that secular

INTRODUCTION

21

world-cleanness and perhaps holiness as well. Cleanness, after all, leads to holiness, and holiness to the coming of the Messiah, one of whose tasks, it is said, is to burn the tenth and last red cow in the decile sequence of M. 3: 5's sages, in the words of Maimonides (Red Heifer 3:4): Now nine red heifers were prepared from the time this commandment was received until the Temple was destroyed the second time: the first Moses our Master prepared, the second Ezra prepared, and there seven from Ezra to the destruction of the Temple. And a tenth will King Messiah prepare-may he soon be revealed!

CHAPTER ONE

PARAH CHAPTER ONE Our tractate opens with a chapter remarkably uninterested in the red cow, which appears only at M. 1:lB-C( +D-E). The sole pertinent issue is the maximum age of the red cow, and Eliezer holds it may be two years old, against the view of sages, who allow one three or four years old, and Meir who permits use of one even five years old. The remainder of the chapter is a collection of pericopae relevant to the age of various other animals to be sacrificed. M. 1:lF-Y interjects a set of three stories about Ben cAzzai, in which inherited formulae are explained. M. 1:2-3 give us Yose the Galilean's view that bullocks may be two years old. Ushan opinions, both at M. 1 :2 and in T. 1:1-7A, deal with other animals as well. M. 1:3K-M contain a Yavnean gloss for the primary construction of M. 1:1-3, a list of five animals, heifer, cow, bullock, lambs, and rams, and this strongly suggests that in the beginning, at Y avneh, the chapter consisted of M. 1: lA, 2A, and 3G-I. M. 1 :4 is a separate unit, which speaks not of specific animals but of types of offerings and the age at which animals used for those offerings are acceptable, a well-constructed item with perfect balance in its two parts, and an unfortunate gloss. That gloss is, however, attested in T. 1 :8 to Usha, so the original unit of tradition is apt to have been complete no later than mid-secondcentury. In all, therefore, we have a primary Yavnean construction, as specified, enriched with Ushan interpolations and glosses. T. is nearly wholly autonomous of M. 1:1 A. R. Eliezer says, "A heifer-a year old. B. "And a cow-two years old." [Danby: "The heifer ( whose neck is to be broken-Deut. 21: 1) must be (not more than) one year old; and the (Red) Heifer (not more than) two years old." Lieberman SZ, p. 27, N. 67: "at least two ... to be purchased from the funds of the terumah of the chamber."] C. 1. And sages say, "A heifer-two years old, and a cow-three years old, 2. "or four years old." D. R. Meir says, "Even one five years old. E. 1. [Maharam, GRA: And] "The old one is suitable. 2. "But they do not keep it waiting, lest a hair turn black,

PARAH CHAPTER ONE 1:1

23

[GRA: and] it should not [otherwise} become unfit." F. Said R. Joshua, "I heard only shelashit." G. They said to him, "What is the meaning of the language, shelashit ?" H. Said he to them, "Thus have I heard plain [ without explanation}." I. Said Ben cAzzai, "I shall explain." J. "If you say shelishit, [it means the third in relationship J to others in sequence. K. "And when you shelashit [it means}, three years old." L. In like manner have they said [ or: did he sayJ, M. A four-year-old vineyard (kerem revaci). N. They said to him, "What is the meaning of the language, revaci?" 0. Said he to them, "Thus have I heard plain." P. Said Ben cAzzai, "I shall explain. Q. "If you say revici, [it means the fourth in relationship J to others in sequence. R. "And when you say revaci, [it means} four years old." S. In like manner have they said, T. He who eats in a house afflicted with plague-a half-loaf [the size} of which is three to the qav. They said to him, "Say [rather} eighteen to the seJah." U. Said he to them, "Thus have I heard plain." W. Said Ben CAzzai,"I shall explain. X. "If you say from three for a qav, the dough-offering does not apply to it. [It had not been liable to Dough-offering. J Y. "But when you say 'from eighteen for a seJah,' its doughoffering diminishes it." [Danby: "It means that the dough-offering that was taken from it has lessened the loaf (somewhat.") J M. 1:1 (b. R.H. 10a) (Sifra I:Jova 3:1)

This complex pericope consists of a dispute, A-C, a gloss on the dispute, D-E, and then an appended, autonomous trilogy, F-Y, this last group consisting of F-K, lacking an introductory clause, which is parah shelashit, M-R, joined fore and aft by L and S, and T-Y, a set of three stories in identical form. The first story is defective, as observed, since it does not have a topic-sentence equivalent to M and T. Why not? Because F depends upon A-B. Formed differently, it would yield a dispute: A cow R. Eliezer says, Two years old R. Joshua says, ('P) Three years old.

In substance, but not in language, sages of C and Joshua of F concur. But Joshua's parah shelashit is lacking in A-E. The sages' opinion is

24

PARAH CHAPTER ONE 1 : 1

glossed with C2-for three years old is all that is needed to balance Eliezer's two, and the only reason we have four in addition is to join Meir's gloss to the existing dispute. The formal autonomy of F-K, which thematically relate to the existing unit, from L-Y, which do not, is marked by the absence of Joshua from the latter subgroups. They are Ben cAzzai's stories, not Joshua's stories. I am inclined to think that the absence of an equivalent in F-K to M and T is because it has been dropped, so as to join F to A-C. The topic-clause has not been added in the later stories. This again points to the whole trilogy of Ben cAzzai as a unit constructed for its own self-evident purposes. Let us ask what equivalent to M and T is to be expected. Since these are allusions to, or citations of, standard phrases, what standard phrase should we have for the cow? As indicated, I am inclined to think parah shelashit, parallel to kerem revaci, should suffice. T's he who eats in a house afflicted with plague is excessive and out of phase with the rest; primary to the tradition is simply the loaf three to a qav. (That is why T does not attest M. Neg. 13: 10 to Yavneh.) So much for formal considerations. The relevant law of the pericope is less complex than the form into which it is set. The issue of A-E is the maximum age of the heifer, referred to in Deut. 21:lff., and of the red cow of Num. 19:1-22. Eliezer says the former-cGLH-is at least (TYY) one year old, the latter-PRH-between one and two, and sages say the former is two years old, the latter three. C2 is curious, since the formal requirement of A-B-1/2, 2/3-is met in Cl. It would be preferable had C2 begun without or ew): [A cow]-four years old, followed by D, thus 4/5. If the sages are satisfied with a three-year-old cow, that fact carries no logical implications about their position on a four-year-old one. Ethen expands D, explaining Meir's opinion. The main point is that if we have a red cow, we use it as soon as it is proper, since waiting may produce loss of the cow. The cow may ( 1) produce a black hair, or it may ( 2) otherwise become unfit, for instance, by being used for common labor (Num. 19:2). That the two clauses of E2 are separate reasons is not beyond doubt; if lest a hair turn black is interpolated, then, But they do not keep ... that it not become ... originally formed a complete thought and a smooth sentence. But SV TPSL and SM' TSHYR do not fit together as a single sentence. On D, El-2, Albeck, p. 560, says the point is that a cow even older than five is acceptable. F-K add nothing to the stated law. Joshua refers to language not

PARAH CHAPTER ONE

1 :1-3

25

used in A-E, as I said, and the little pericope certainly requires parah shelashit, with Joshua then asked G. Ben cAzzai' s explanation is clear as stated. M-R repeat the same thought, now with references to the rules of M. 5: 1-5. If we say RBYcY, we refer to the fourth vineyard planted in this particular place or to the vineyard which came fourth, in sequence of acquisition, into the owner's possession (Albeck, p. 257). S-Y bring us to the stock-phrase (lvf. Kel. 17:11, M. Eruv. 8:2), PRS MSLS LQB. We speak of a half a loaf of bread made when three loaves derive from a qav of meal. The point of U is that ,ve may as easily refer to a whole half loaf deriving from bread m:1de at eighteen loaves to a se0 ah. Why? We speak of three loaves to a qav, which arc eighteen loaves to a se0 ah, since a qav is a sixth of a se0 ah, thus: A half-loaf Three loaves to a qcw

A half-loaf

Eighteen loaves to a se0 ah

Ben cAzzai's reply, X-Y, depends upon the rule, M. Ed. 1 :2, that bread produced from five-fourth's of a qav is liable for the doughoffcring. If a person makes a bread from a qav, which is fourfourths, he does not have to set aside the dough-offering. \Ve thus use the language of q,1v.If, by contrast, we use the language of se0 ah, then we mean that a person has made the loaf from a se0 ah, which is liable for the dough-offering. Each half-loaf is proportionately diminished in accord with the required measure of the dough-offering. The net result is that the half-loaf under discussion is larger than the one of which we should speak if we made use of the language of se0 ,,hmcasurcmcnt. The meagre practical difference in requiring that the loaf be larger, in the case of M. I·.Jeg. 13:9, is that the leper must remain in the house a trifle longer before what is in the house is made unclean, and, accordingly, the formulary imposes a more lenient ruie. On Meir's 0 P, see Epstein, Nusalp, pp. 1027-8.

1:2-3 A. R. Yose the Galilean says, "Bullocks-two years old. B. "As it is said, And a second [year] bullock (PR SNY) of the herd will you take for a pttrification-offering (Num. 8:S)." C. And sages say, "Even one three years old." D. R. Meir says, "Even one four years old, E. "even one five years old are suitable. F. "But they do not bri,,g old ones, because of the honor [ of the altar]." M. 1:2 (Sifra J:Iova 3:1-2)

26

PARAH CHAPTER ONE

1:2-3

G. H.

Lambs-one year old. And rams-two years old. I. And in all cases, [ the year is reckonedJ from [birth J day to [birth] day. J. One thirteen months old is not suitable either for a lamb or for a man. K. R. Tarfon calls it Palges. L. Ben cAzzai calls it N oqed. M. R. Ishmael calls it ParkharigmaJ(Katsh, Plate 103: PRK KRYGMH; V: PRDYGMJ, C: PRKRYGMH; K: P(Q)KRYGMH; M, Pa., PB, P: PRKRYGMJ; T: PRRGMJ; N: PRDNMJ). N. [If] one did offer it up, one brings on its account the drinkofferings of a ram. But his sacrifice does not go to his credit. 0. One which is thirteen months and one day old-lo, this is a ram. M. 1:3 (b. B.Q. 65b; N: b. Men. 91b, b. Hul. 23a)

The specification of the required age of various sacrificial animals continues through M. 1 :2-3. M. 1 :2 gives us a three-party dispute, two/three/four (even five). That enumeration explains why "sages" intervene between Yose the Galilean and Meir. In this regard the classical dispute, placing the named authority before the sages, is loosened up. Formally, the dispute is formed by A, C, and D. B glosses A, and E, as before, extends Meir's opinion. M. l:lE is the counterpart of M. 1:2F. Meir will accept the old cow, not the old bullock. One should not wait for the former. If one does have the latter, by contrast, it is not offered. The reasoning is self-evidently the same in both rules, however. Yose presumably accords with Eliezer. Both the cow (parah) and the bullock (par) are to be two years old. Sages of M. 1: 1C and M. 1 :2C also hold the same opinion. It would have been preferable to give Meir of M. 1:1D the view that a four-year-old one is acceptable, and even one five years old. To be sure, if he approves five, all the more so four. Sages' view of Num. 8:8 is given in Tos. 1:1. The next unit of tradition, G-H + I, completes our list. We must first ask, to what antecedent materials do G-I form a conclusion? The form-name of animals, specification of ages-forthwith invites reference to M. 1 :lA-C and 1: 2A, for in these instances we have precisely the form continued in M. 1:3G-H and handsomely concluded at I. Let us construct such a list, treating the disputed materials as appended glosses: [Eliezer says]

Heifer, one year old Cow, two years old

PARAH CHAPTER

ONE

[Sages say]

[+

Meir: four, five] [Yose the Galilean JBullocks, two years old [ Sages say] Meir: four, five J

[+

27

1 :2-3 Heifer, two years old Cow, three years old

Bullocks, three years Lambs, one year old And rams, two years old

In all cases ....

\X' e have in all five items, as is common for little catalogues: 1. Heifer

2. Cow

3. Bullocks 4. Lambs 5. Rams \Ve forthwith exclude Meir's op11110nsfrom formal considcrcttion, since they are phrased as glosses. But what about M. 1:lA-C and M. 1 :2? \v'hich comes first: sages, or the named master, Eliczer, then Yose the Galilean, then the items on which all parties agree, Nos. 4-5? We have the following: Eliezer Sages Yose 1. Heifer, one year 2. Cow, two years

3. Bullock, two years

two years three years three years

4. Lambs, one year 5. Rams, two years

Accordingly, in no way do we see a clear sequence of numbers, one through five-though Meir kindly gives us that possibility, if not for Yavnch. What we do have, however, is a base of one/two years at Nos. 1, 2, then 4, 5,-1, 2, (2), 1, 2. If Eliezer stands behind the list, then its point is striking: the heifer and lamb differ from the other sacrificial animals, in that they are to be one year old; the remainder are to be two years old. Eliezer gives us our mnemonic base of 1, 2, 1, 2. Yose the Galilean concurs in this view. He adds the middle 2. The sages, by contrast, want us to accept two, three, three, one, two-no pattern at all, also no point. For why should we construct as a list a catalogue of items in so random a pattern, except to respond to items constructed in a purposeful p;ittern? If the sages stmd behind the list, then why should they not attempt some numerical pattern, for example, three, three, two, two, one? Why put the heifer first,

28

PARAH CHAPTER ONE

1 :2-3

if, so far as the sages are concerned, it will be perfectly content to sit near the bottom of the list, with the other two? I suspect, therefore, that Eliezer begins the list. Y ose the Galilean, somewhat later, and not his disciple, follows his conception that the correct age for the named animals, except the heifer and lamb, is two years, and his name need not occur at all except for the dispute thereunto appended. Both Eliezer and Y ose are firm on the two years, and it is the sages who diverge. That seems to me to be the main point. The next set begins at J and concludes at N, with a gloss at 0. K-M are an autonomous gloss. The meanings of the several names have been variously explained. Palges is IlixMC(~,youth (Danby, p. 698, M. 4); noqed (following Yalon's pointing, Albeck p. 258) means a poor quality of sheep (Albeck, p. 259); Ishmael refers to the TIC(PC(XIXPC('(fl,C(, which means counterfeit coin (Danby). The point of J,N-0, is that an animal which is more than one year old is unacceptable until it has entered the second month of its second year ( 0) , in the case of the ram ( and presumably into its third year, in the case of the lamb). That is the self-evident opinion of the gloss of 0. N is of no interest. The whole set seems to me to follow upon our (theoretical) original list only in respect to G-H, about which Eliezer and Yose are not concerned. So the list would seem composed of three separate units of tradition: M. 1:lA-B, with the sages' gloss at C and Meir's at D-E; M. 1 :2A, with the sages' gloss at C, and Meir's at D-F, and M. l:3G-H, completed by the decisive rule of I, which itself is glossed at J,N-0. Fortunately, K-M attest J to Yavneh, so the entire construction is apt to have been completed before Meir's work of glossing was undertaken. And, for fairly simple reasons, the sages' opinion almost surely was added before Meir's, since the willingness to accept an older animal begins with the sages, and Meir simply says that the same principle requires a still broader age-range than introduced by the sages. A. A bullock twenty-four months and one day old-lo, this is a fully grown bullock (PR SLM). B. And R. Leazar says, "They give it thirty days after the twentyfour months [not merely one day, as in A). C. "For every place in which A bullock of the herd is said [the reference is to one which is) two years old." D. [But) bullock (PR) plain [without further explanation) is three years to five years old [ = Meir, sages). E. R. Y ose the Galilean says, "Bullocks are two years old, as it is said, A (bullock) two [years old) bullock of the herd will you take for purification-offering (Num. 8:8)."

PARAH CHAPTER ONE

1:2-3

29

F. They said to him, "It does not say two [years old], but second [in ordinal relationship J to the first. G. "Just as the first is not eaten, so the second is not eaten." I. Said R. Simeon, "To what is a purification-[ offering] likened? To a paraclete, who enters in to appease [the judge]. Once the paraclete has accomplished appeasement, then the gift is brought in." T. 1:1 (Tos. Reng. p. 185, ls. 3-11) (C-D: b. R.H. l0a; I: b. Zev. 7b, Part VII, p. 154, Sifra Me:;,ora 3:14)

J. Rabbi says, "Why does Scripture say, A two [year old] bullock of the herd will you take for a purification-offering (Num. 8:8)? K. "If it is to teach that they are two [bullocks], lo, it already has been said, And he will prepare the one as a purification-offering and the one as a whole-offering (Num. 8:12). [Thus we know two are needed]. L. "Might one think that the purification-offering takes precedence over the whole-offering in every aspect of the rite? M. "Scripture says, And a second bullock (PR SNY) of the herd will you take for a purification-offering. N. "Or A second bullock of the herd will you take for a purification-offering0. "Might one think that the whole-offering should take precedence over the purification-offering in every aspect of the rite? P. "Scripture says, And he will prepare the one as a purificationoffering and the one as a whole-offering to the Lord (Num. 8:12). Q. "How so? The blood of the purification-offering takes precedence over the blood of the whole-offering, because it appeases (the Lord]. [ = Simeon]. The limbs of the whole-offering take precedence over the pieces of the purification-offering, because they are wholly burned up in the fire." T. 1:2 (Tos. Reng. p. 185, ls. 12-13, p. 186, ls. 1-7)

R. R. Simeon says, "Why does Scripture say, And a second bullock of the herd will you take for the purification-offering (Num. 8:8)? S. "If it is to teach that they are two, lo, it already has been said, And he will prepare the one as a purification-offering and the one as a whole-offering to the Lord (Num. 8:12). If so, why is it said, And a second bullock of the herd will you take for a purification-offering (Num. 8:8)? T. "Might one think, the purification-offering is consumed by the LeYites? U. "Scripture says, Second. V. "Second to the whole-offering. W. "Just as the whole-offering is not consumed, so the purificationoffering is not consumed." T. 1:3 (Tos. Reng. p. 186, ls. 8-13) (R: b. Hor. 5b)

PARAH CHAPTER ONE 1 :2-3

30

In like manner: Y. Said R. Yose, "They that had come from the captives of the exile offered up whole-offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety-nine rams, seventy-seven lambs, and, as a purification-offering, twelve he-goats-all this as a burnt-offering for the Lord (Ezra 8:35). Z. "Is it possible that the purification-offering is a burnt-offering? AA. "But just as the burnt-offering is not eaten, so the purification-offering is not eaten." BB. And so did R Judah say [that] they brought them on account of idolatry. T. 1 :4 (Tos. Reng. p. 186, ls. 14-20) (X-BB: b. Tern. 15b) X.

b. R.H. 10a gives, "Bullock mentioned in the Torah without further qualification means an animal twenty-four months and one day old, the words of R. Meir. R. Eleazar says, It means an animal twenty-four months and thirty days old. For R. Meir would say, Wherever calf (cegel) is mentioned in the Torah without further qualification, it means one of the first year, and heifer of the flock means, of the second year; bullock means of the third year." Accordingly, b. holds that T. 1:1D belongs to Meir, that is, the view of sages in M. 1:2C. E = M. 1 :2A. D then combines sages and Meir of M. 1 :2C-D, that is, accepting a bullock from three to five years old. So Leazar and Meir are among Yose's opposition, since Leazar (B) wants an additional month. The reply to Y ose in E supplies a different view of SNY. The two offerings are compared to one another. Then Simeon explains the rule. Even though the blood of the purification-offering takes precedence over the burnt-offering, for Simeon's reason in I, the limbs of the burnt-offering take precedence over those of the purification-offering, on which account bullock second-meaning, in second place-is stated (TR III, p. 209). Lieberman observes that this whole set derives from Sifra I;Iovah 3:2. Rabbi's point, J-Q, is the same as that of the sages in F-G, and Simeon's saying in I explains Q, Lieberman points out. R-W, Simeon's saying, then go over the same ground as F-G, and X-AA repeat the main point about comparing the purification- to the burnt-offering. On BB, see TR III, p. 210. The relationship to M. is dear. T. 1:1 is an autonomous version of the same issue as is presented by M., but, even though Y ose in T. l:lE is identical to the corresponding passage in M., the setting is wholly different. M. knows nothing about Leazar or Simeon, let

PARAH CHAPTER ONE

1 :2-3

31

alone Rabbi. Accordingly, we have two quite discrete versions of the matter of the age of various animals, only one of them bullocks, and the issue of T., unlike that of M., is the interpretation of Num. 8:8, in which matter Yose's saying in M. is treated as a small part of the picture. In fact nearly all of T. for our chapter is autonomous . A. R. Simeon says, "In every place in the Torah in which heifer is mentioned without further specification, it means one year old, and a heifer and a lamb [are also to be} one year old (Lev. 9:3). Of the herd-two years old, as it is said, Take for yourself a heifer of the herd for a purification-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering (Lev. 9:2). B. "Perfect-in respect to years. "And perfect-free of every sort of blemish." C. R. Yose says, "Three atonement-offerings (KPRWT) [come} from the bullocks, and three from the rams, and three from the goats. D. "Three [come} from the bullocks: (1) A bullock which comes with the unleavened bread. (2) "And the bullock of the Day of Atonement, ( 3) "And the heifer whose neck is broken. E. "Three [come} from the rams: ( 1) "A guilt-offering because of a certain sin, "and (2) a suspensive guilt-offering, "and (3) a female sheep of the individual. F. "Three [come} from the goats: (1) "The goats of the festivals, "and (2) the goat of the Day of Atonement, "and (3) the goat of the prince." T. 1:5 (Tos. Reng. p. 187, ls. 1-9) Now A places Simeon, who concurs with Yose, M. 1:2, in the position of Eliezer in M. 1 :1. B continues the exegesis of the cited Scriptures. C-F are autonomous and do not relate to our M.; on the passage, see TR III, pp. 210-211; the primary locus is Sifra, Lieberman says. A. "Lambs a year old which are mentioned in the Torah are three hundred and sixty-five [ days old}, one for each of the days of the solar year," the words of Rabbi. B. And sages say, "From the first of Nisan to the first of Nisan, from the ninth of Av to the ninth of Av. [If it] is a leap year, it is a leap year for it." T. 1:6 (Tos. Reng. p. 187, ls. 10-13) (b. R.H. 66) A. A year which is stated with reference to the houses of cities encompassed by a wall and years said with reference to the field of possession and the six [years} spoken of with reference to the Hebrew

32

PARAH CHAPTER ONE

1:2-4

slave and all other references to years with respect to the son and the daughter-all are from [birth J day to [birth J day. T. 1:7A (Tos. Reng. p. 187, ls. 14-16) (b. Ar. 18b)

The view of sages is that we reckon 354 days, that is, by the lunar calendar, and if the year is intercalated, we count 383 days. Rabbi dearly prefers the solar year. 1:4 A. (1) The sin-offerings of the congregation [Lev. 4:14) and their whole-offerings, (2) the sin-offering of an individual, (3) and the guilt-offering of a Nazir [Num. 6:14), (4) and the guilt-offering of a leper [Lev. 14:12), B. are suitable from [ the time that they are] thirty days old and upwards, C. and even on the thirtieth day. D. And if they offered them up on the eighth day, they are suitable. E. (1) Vow- and freewill-offerings, (2) the firstlings, (3) the tithe [ of cattle, Lev. 17:32), ( 4) and the Passover-offering, F. are suitable from the eighth day and upward, G. and even on the eighth day. M. 1:4

Strikingly, our concluding pericope shifts from the discussion of animals and their ages to the discussion of the purposes for which the animals are used. The pericope, autonomous of what has gone before, is beautifully constructed in a careful, formalized pattern. The present catalogues, four items each (Al-4, El-4, treating vowand freewill-offerings as a single unit) are carefully matched, B to F, C to G. D is a problem. Its sense, of course, is reproduced at G, which matches C. But why should we be told that animals are suitable "after thirty days-and even on the thirtieth day," and forthwith concede that they are also ( even?) acceptable from the eighth day? If C-and eventhen why D? Even on the thirtieth day surely excludes from the primary pericope the amazing concession of D, since, if the authority behind C had known D, he would have spared us and even (WJP). Alternatively, if the authority behind D had known C, he would have given us something stronger than and if (WJM). But we cannot have both. It looks to me as though we have two glossators, the one

PARAH CHAPTER ONE

1:4

33

who gives C, and, self-evidently, its pair at G, and the one who gives D. Another possibility is that D really makes the same point as G. It belongs therefore in place of G or after G. It is not set in place of G, simply because the established pattern would have imposed a different formulation on D. And it cannot follow G because, in that case, it would say precisely what G has already said. Accordingly, the pericope begins with A, B, E, and F. C and G come from one hand. An alternative gloss is D's, and the ultimate redactor, having A+B, E + F before him, as well as two separate glosses, C + G and D, used everything he had, and, accordingly, botched the redaction of the pericope. He would have been better advised to leave out D entirely. The unit is separate from the foregoing, it goes without saying. What animals are required for the purposes specified by A? They are, Al, goats for the New Moon and festivals, a year old, and ( more to the point!) lambs (KBS), for A2. Lev. 4:28ff. requires a female-goat or a female lamb for the individual, the guilt-offering of the Nazir and of the leper are to be lambs (Num. 6:12, Lev. 14:12). All these items may be thirty-days old and upward. M. 1 :3 has told us they are to be a year old. Where have we heard that an animal a month beyond its birthday is regarded as in its next year of age? Surely M. 1: 3J will not be happy with this rule. J is clear that the conclusion of thirteen months does not put the animal into its second year. M. 1:3/0 says a year, a month, and a day will do. I am inclined to think the authority of that rule will not have been unhappy, but the master who gives us M. 1:3} cannot possibly agree with this rule. The next group is quite autonomous in theme. Lev. 22 :27 tells us that from the eighth day onward, the several animals of E are acceptable for El, 2. Ex. 22:29 is explicit on the first-born, and the tithe and Passover are treated as equivalent to the first-born. As we have clearly seen, the formal pattern of the pericope proves the two cliff erent rules belong together and are a harmonious unit of tradition, despite their disparity. A-B follow M. 1-3 because M. 1:30 may have been seen by the ultimate redactor of the chapter as consistent with M. 1:4A-B. It hardly needs to be said that after M. 1:lA-C, the theme of our tractate is hardly in evidence. B. Required whole-offerings of the individual are suitable from the thirtieth day and onward, and even on the thirtieth day. C. And if they offered them up on the eighth day, they are suitable. T. 1:7B (Tos. Reng. p. 187, Is. 16-18) 3

34

PARAH CHAPTER ONE

1 :4

B adds an item to the list of M. 1 :4A and then repeats M. 1 :4B-D's formula. A. R. Eleazar says, "The Passover is suitable only from the thirtieth day [ of its birth J and onward." B. This is the general principle which R. Eleazar stated: C. "Any animal concerning which a year old is said is acceptable from the thirtieth day [ so GRA J and onward. D. "But if one offered it up on the eighth day, it is suitable." E. With reference to a firstling on which, at the moment of birth, a blemish appeared, one may slaughter and eat it even on the very day on which it is born. T. 1:8 Tos. Reng. p. 187, ls. 19-20, p. 188, ls. 1-2 (E: b. Shab. 136a)

Eleazar (A) differs from M. l:4E4-G. In C-D, Eleazar concurs with M. 1 :4B and D, but M. l:4C is omitted, a better version of the law than M.'s. E supplements M. 1 :4E2; its rule is not required by M., to which T. 1 :8E is irrelevant.

CHAPTER TWO

PARAH CHAPTER TWO M. 1:1, Eliezer's set, continues at M. 2:lA-B and C-D. M. 2:lE-I elaborates the sages' view vis a vis Eliezer's. The issue is the definition of the cow to be used for the purification-rite. Eliezer rules that it may be pregnant and that it may not be purchased from gentiles. His principle is that, since it is sacrificed outside of the Temple, the cow is distinct from other animals used for the cult; this is made explicit at M. 2:3. M. 2:2 introduces traits of the cow which do not render it unfit or which may be removed, an Ushan item. M. 2:3C-F and 2 :4 spell out the principle that one may not make secular use of the cow. If one used the cow in ways pertinent to its own needs, that does not render the cow unsuitable, but if one used it for his purpose, it does. T. refines this principle. This set also is Ushan, as is M. 2:5A-C, the status of a few hairs which are not red. A Yavnean pericope, M. 2:5D-F, intervenes, in which cAqiva and Eliezer agree we may remove black or white hair. G-K introduce the issue of M. Neg. 4:4, hair which is red at the root and black at the top, or vice versa. The chapter consists of Yavnean and Ushan rules; Judah links Eliezer to Ushan issues. Yavnean units are M. 2:lA-D, 2:3A-B, and 2:5D-F. Attested or assigned to Usha are M. 2:2, 2:3C-F, 2:4, and 2:5A-C, G-K. The principles throughout are consistent; the redactor has carefully used discrete materials to achieve thematic and logical consistency. 2:1 A. R. Eliezer says, "A cow for purification which is pregnant is suitable." B. And sages declare unfit. C. R. Eliezer says, "It is not purchased from the gentiles." D. And sages declare fit. E. And not this alone, but: F. All community and private offerings derive from the Land and from abroad, G. from what is new and from what is old [produce] H. except for the comer and two bread [loaves, Lev. 23:17), I. which come only from what is new and from the Land. M. 2:1 (C: b. A.Z. 23a-b, y. A.Z. 2:1; F: y. Sheq. 4:1, b. Men. 82a)

36

PARAH CHAPTER TWO

2 :1

The pericope consists of two disputes, A-B, and C-D, in perfect balance, KSR and PSL. E extends the opinion of the sages. G introduces the matter of produce used for the altar, H-1 then gloss G; the unit bears no relationship to A-D. Judah, M. 2:4, refines Eliezer's opinion. He holds that if the owner intentionally had the bull mount, then the cow cannot be used, but if it was not done with the owner's complicity, he agrees with Eliezer that the pregnant cow is suitable. The anonymous opinion of l'vf. 2 :4, which rejects the pregnant cow, of course accords with sages here. Following Na}:iman, b. Tern. 306, TYY holds that Eliezer says the foetus is part of the cow, like a limb, and sages see it as separate, thus two cows-and we speak of one only. The cow then bears the burden of the foetus, and, having performed work, is unfit. This issue is not intrinsic. F-I recur at M. Men. 8:1; they are hardly integral to our tractate, though, after Chapter One, that is not a major issue. We may assume Eliezer differs on E-I ( GRA). The issue of purchasing the cow from the gentiles is explained (b. A.Z. 23b; Maimonides, Red Heifer l:7B) in terms of bestiaJity. Eliezer assumes the gentile may have used the ww for an act of bestiality, and sages hold that the owner would not render the bco..st1,•orthless to Israelite cult by such a usage, since it is not in his interest to do so. The discussion of Lieberman, SZ, pp. 25-28, must be consulted at this point. A. R. Eliezer says, "It is not purchased from the gentiles." B. They said to him, lvfCSH\;V: "They purchased it from gentiles in Sidon, and it was called Romah (Alt.: Dumah)." [b. A.Z. 236: he was called .... J C. R. Judah [b. A.Z.: EliezerJ says, "They guard it with care th,,t one not do with it any sort of labor at all." D. Said they to him, "If so, the matter has no limit. But it is presumed to be suitable." E. R. Meir says, "A cow whose eyeballs are black, if there is no other cow which is like it, is unfit (GRA: fit)." T. 2:1 (Tos. Reng. p. 188, ls. 4-9) (B: b. A.Z. 23b)

A = M. 2:lC. B supplies the sages with a precedent. In b. A.Z. 236 C then gives Eliezer (not Judah) a reply; this particular cow was well protected by Israelites from disc.1ualification. D ans,vers C. We take for granted so valuable a property will not be ahused. T.'s version treats C-D as separate from B. E relates to M. 2 :2B. The point is that if this cow has counterparts,

PARAH CHAPTER TWO 2: 1-2

37

it is acceptable, but if it is exceptionally disfigured, it is not. Meir therefore rejects M.'s law (TR III, p. 212).

2:2 A. A cow whose horns and hoofs are black-let one chop (K, C: YQWR) [them] off. B. The eyeball and the teeth and the tongue [which are blemished] do not render unfit in the [ case of the J cow. C. And the dwarf is suitable. D. [If] there was on it a wen, and one chopped it offE. R. Judah declares unfit. F. R. Simeon says, "Any place from which it was removed and which place did not put forth red hair-it is unfit." [Maimonides, Red Heifer 1:6: "Even though red hairs grow in its place, it is invalid."} M. 2:2 (b. Bekh. 44a)

A, B, and C give us three autonomous rules in simple declarative sentences. As in Chapter One, they continue the form of Eliezer' s sayings, thus; A pregnant cow for purification is suitable ... it is not purchased from gentiles ... A cow whose horns ... let one chop ... the eye-ball ... do not render unfit ... the dwarf is suitable. The sages' sayings in M. 2:1 gloss Eliezer's; we cannot assume they will not have agreed with the declarative sentences before us. The point of B is that the cow's eyeball, teeth, and tongue are not normal; in the latter items, they are black ( Albeck, p. 260). The same principle-that there are traits which are not normal, yet do not render the cow unfit-applies in C. M. Bekh. 7:6 accepts the dwarf for a sacrifice. The issue of D-F's dispute is a wen or an extra nail. Judah says it is unfit. Simeon should say it is fit. He holds it may be fit, under the stated condition, namely, if we remove the wen or nail and red hair grows in its place. Simeon's saying therefore is a secondary development of a primary opinion, which is that it is not necessarily unfit. A. [If} its horns and hoofs were removed and the marrow [Lisowsky: lebende Substanz] with them, it is unfit. [This is a blemish]. B. One [born by Caesarean section] from the side is unfit. C. And R. Simeon declares fit. D. The hire [of the harlot] and the price [of a dog]-it is unfit. E. R. Eliezer declares fit, since it is said, You will not bring the hire of a harlot and the price of the dog to the house of the Lord your God (Deut. 23:19). F. This one does not come to the house. T. 2:2 (Tos. Reng. p. 188, ls. 10-13) (A: b. Bekh. 44a; B-C: b. A.Z. 23b)

38

PARAH CHAPTER TWO

2 :2-4

A qualifies M. 2:2A. The marrow is intrinsic. B-C = M. 2:3A. Simeon differs from M.'s anonymous rule. Then D treats M. 2:3A2-3 as separate from M. 2:3Al, and repeats the language of M. 2:3A2-3, B-C. Accordingly, T. improves on M. by showing that the issue of M. 2:3Al is distinct from the remainder. 2:3-4 A. ( 1) A [ cow born of Caesarean birth from J the side, ( 2) and the [harlot's J hire and ( 3) the price [ of a dog]-it is unfit. B. R. Eliezer declares fit, C. since it is said, You will not bring the harlot's hire and the price of a dog to the house of the Lord your God (Deut. 23:18). But this one does not come to the house. D. All blemishes which render unfit in the case of Holy Things [ sanctified animalsJ render unfit in the case of the cow [M. Bekh. 6: 1-12]. E. [If] (1) one rode upon it, ( 2) leaned upon it, ( 3) suspended ( something] on its tail, ( 4) crossed the river on it, ( 5) doubled up its leading rope, (6) placed his cloak upon itit is unfit. F. But: [if] (1) one tied it with a rope [Maimonides, Red Heifer 1:7F: "When she is fractious and requires tethering"], (2) made for it a sandal so that it should not slip, ( 3) spread his cloak over it because of the flies-it is fit. G. This is the general principle: Whatever [is done] for its need -it is suitable. For some other need-it is unfit. M. 2:3 (D: b. A.Z. 46a-b; b. Tern. 306; El: y. Shab. 19:1, Pes. 6:1; E: b. Shab. 52a) H. ( 4) [If] a bird rested on it, it is fit. I. If a male [bull] mounted it-it is unfit. J. R. Judah says, "If {people] brought it up [upon the cow], it is unfit. But if [ the bull did soJ of its own account, it is fit." M. 2:4 (b. Pes. 266, B.M. 30a)

What is interesting here is the issue of whether the red cow is regarded as a Holy Thing which belongs to the altar, contrary to Eliezer's principle. If it is, then the rules governing sacrifices govern the cow (b. A.Z. 23b, Maimonides, Mishnah-commentary to 2:3). The sages' view is that the cow is subject to additional restrictions, in connection with the prohibitions against making use of the cow. Eliezer holds that the cow is subject to its own rules, without reference to

PARAH CHAPTER TWO

2:3-4

39

those pertaining to the sacrificial animals. As I said, Judah then carries forward Eliezer' s principle, with his own refinement about the volition of the owners. Now to the form of the two pericopae. Al is not subject to dispute. Eliezer's opinion refers only to A2-3 (Rosh, Bert.). Yet C shows us that A 1 is not out of place, since it is a blemish pertinent to Holy Things. Eliezer disagrees with C, therefore with Al. As we saw, T. treats Al as separate from A2-3. E's list does not correspond with F's, except at E5 = Fl and E6 = F3, and these two items are well explained by G. The other items of E-1, 2, 3, and 4-scarcely require G's explanation, since there is no possibility that these are actions which serve the cow. What we should want, therefore, is a counterpart in E to F2, and it should fit between E5 and E6. I can think of no pertinent item. I would be a fourth item for the list of F, but it hardly requires the explanation of G. For the point of H is simply that we do not take account of things outside the control of the owner, and H's principle stands behind J's distinction. Accordingly, the construction of E-G is complete without H. As is clear, 1-J form a dispute, in which, like Simeon at M. 2:2, Judah wishes not wholly to disagree with, but simply to qualify, the anonymous rule. Judah's distinction is between what is done at the volition of the owner, and what is done naturally or accidentally, which is, as I said, the principle behind H as well. Yet why should the authority behind I reject H, since the qualitative difference is obvious? H follows the formulary pattern of E-F, past tense verb + upon it. M. Bekh. 7:7 spells out the items referred to in D. A. Any sort of labor on account of which they are liable in connection with Holy Things is unsuited [better: renders unfit] in the case of the cow. B. [If] one brought it in to the [threshing] team [to suck], and it [ accidentallyJ threshed with its mother, it is fit. C. And if it is so that it will [both J suck and thresh, it is unfit. [Maimonides, Red Heifer 1:7H: "Since she does what is agreeable to him."] D. This is the general principle: Whatever is for its own necessity is suitable, and for some other necessity [ than its own] it unfit. T. 2:3 (Tos. Reng. p. 188, ls. 14-17) (B: b. Pes. 26a, y. Pes. 6: 1, b. B.M. 30a)

T. 2:3A is parallel to M. 2:3D. B-C then supply an autonomous example, parallel to M. 2:3E-F, and D repeats M. 2:3G. b. Pes. treats B-C as pertinent to the heifer whose neck is broken. The point of B-C

40

PARAH CHAPTER TWO

2:3-4

is that if one intended to make use of the cow for his purpose as well as for its needs, that suffices to render it unfit, a refinement of M.'s principle. See TR III, pp. 212-213. A. The yoke renders unfit whether it is [used] for actual work or not [ usedJ for actual work. B. It may be redeemed for any blemish whatsoever. C. [If] it died, it may be redeemed. D. [If] one slaughtered it, it may be redeemed. E. If one found another more beautiful than it, it may be redeemed. F. If one [already] had slaughtered it on its wood-pile [ = properly], it may not ever be redeemed. G. If [ its price} comes from the heave-offering [appropriation} of the chamber [of the Temple treasury},[ if the beast is redeemed}, the funds go to the heave-offering of the chamber [ of the Temple treasury]. T. 2:4 (Tos. Reng. p. 189, ls. 1-5) (b. Sot. 46a, b. Shav. llb) The whole is autonomous of M. Simply placing the yoke on the cow renders it unfit, even though the cow does not draw the yoke. The cow may be redeemed for any reason, until its rite is properly performed (F). G ( = M. Sheq. 4:2) says the funds go back to their source if the cow is redeemed. On A, see Sif. Num. 123G. A. A more strict rule applies to the cow than to Holy Things and to Holy Things than to the cow. [B. Supply, following Sens to M. 1:1 and TR III, p. 214: For the cow is suitable only when red, and any sort of labor renders it unfit, which is not the case with Holy Things. And more strict is the rule applying to Holy Things, for Holy Things are redeemed only on account of a permanent blemish, and do not go forth for secular use, (for example) to be sheared, and to be worked, and the person who shears them or who does work with them incurs forty stripes, which is not the case with the cow. More strict is the rule concerning the heifer ( whose neck is to be broken) than that which applies to Holy Things, and (more strict is the rule applying to) holy things than that applying to the heifer], C. for as to a heifer, age [lit.: years} renders [it} unfit, D. and labor renders it unfit. E. which is not the case with Holy Things. F. For Holy Things are redeemed only for a permanent blemish, and never go forth for ordinary use, to be sheared, and to be worked, and the one who shears and the one who works them, lo, this one is smitten with forty stripes, which is not the case with the heifer. T. 2:5 (Tos. Reng. p. 189, ls. 6-10)

PARAH CHAPTER TWO

2:3·5

41

G. [More strict is the rule J concerning the cow than applies to the heifer, and [ more strict is the rule] concerning the heifer than applies to the cow: H. for the cow is suitable only if it is red, I. and blemishes render it unfit, J. And [if) one did work with it, it is unfit, K. which is not the case with the heifer. L. More strict is the rule applying to the heifer, M. for as to the heifer, age renders it unfit, N. which is not the case with the cow. T. 2:6 (Tos. Reng. p. i89, ls. 11-14) (I: y. Sot. 9:5, b. Sot. 46a)

T.'s whole construction is autonomous of M. ( compare M. Neg. 4:1-3, T. Neg. 7:14-16). The comparison of the red cow, the heifer, and animals used for the cult is carefully worked out, as usual. The matter of age's not rendering the cow unfit follows the view of Meir. Eliezer limits it to two years, sages to three or four. Only Meir explicitly holds that the old one is suitable, without specified limit. Accordingly, the construction is apt to be Ushan or post-Ushan. Maimonides, Red Heifer 1 :7C, gives the following: The red heifer surpasses other Hallowed Things in that labor renders her invalid, for it is said, upon which never came yoke (Num. 19:2). Now of the calf whose neck is to be broken it says, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke (Deut. 21 :3) ; hence we learn that just as with the yoke spoken of in the case of the calf, other labors are made equal to the yoke, so it is with the yoke spoken of in the case of the red heifer-other labors render her invalid as does the yoke, except that the yoke makes her invalid either when laboring or when not laboring, whereas other labors make her invalid only when laboring. Thus if a man harnesses her with a yoke, even though he does not make her plow therein, she becomes invalid. But if he brings her in to tread out grain, she becomes invalid only when he uses her to tread out grain ....

2:5 A. [If} there were on it two black hairs, or white ones, inside a single follicle (GWM~), it is unfit. B. R. Judah says, "Even [Bert. deletes even] in one hollow (KWS)." C. [If} they were in two hollows, and they are opposite [ adjacent to] one another-it is unfit [Maimonides, Red Heifer 1:2: "in a single hole or in two follicles lying side by side"). D. R. cAqiva says, "Even four, even five, and they are scattered about-let one uproot them." E. R. Eliezer says, "Even fifty."

42

PARAH CHAPTER TWO

2: 5

F. R. Joshua b. Betera says, "Even one on its head and one on its tail---it is unfit." G. There were on it two hairs--H. their root is black and their head is redI. their root is red and their head is blackJ. "all follows that which is seen," the words of R. Meir. K. And sages say, " [ All follows the condition of] the root." M. 2:5 (y. A.Z. 2:S\ b. Nid. 52b; A-C: Epstein, Tan., p. 235, Nmc1/p, p. 1028)

Superficially, A is continued at C, that is, two black hairs in one follicle (GWM), or two in two opposite one another-both render the co,v unfit. C uses the language of B, KWS; there is no difference between KWS, hollow, and G\'VMJ, follicle. But what should follow from A is not C, but the opposite of C's rule, namely, if there arc two hairs in two follicles-( even) opposite one another-the cow is fit. The issue is whether t\vo hairs growing from one follicle constitute the disqualifying k1irs, or whether, since grow together, they are perceived as a single hair. A holds that that is not the case. C evidently also holds that that is not the case. And Judah's opinion is that if the t\vo h,1irs grow in a single hollmv, it indeed disqualifies the cow. But let us now ask: What is the view of C on the issue of A? Since C says if we have two hairs in two hollows/follicles, and the hairs are opposite one another, the cow is unfit, accordingly, if there are two hairs in two hollows and they are not opposite one another, the cow is fit; and all the more so if we have two hairs in one follicle/ hollow. Accordingly, A and B concur. C's position on the issue of A should be exactly the opposite of A's. If the issue is what I contend, then A differs from C in principle. T. confirms this ,;urrnise. D-F form a single, autonomous unit. cAc1iYasays we may uproot scattered white or black hair. Eliezer agrees, simply saying we m:iy do so without limit, a very lenient view. Joshua b. Betera takes exactly the opposite opinion from cAqiva. cA_qiva's view is that even if the hairs are not in a single follicle, they may be uprooted. What will be his view of A? Clearly if he approves uprooting many black hairs scattered over the body, he will not agree that two b,tirs in a single follicle eo ipse render the cow unfit; he will say that they should be removed. What about Joshua b. Betera? He surely will concur with C. Will he agree with A? It is difficult to say, for he may see some distinction between two hairs in one follicle and two hairs in two. The )PL W is joining language, so docs not permit us to construct

PARAH CHAPTER TWO

2: 5

43

an argument a fortiori. Accordingly, we can only say that cAqiva and Eliezer will not be impressed with A-C, and Joshua b. Betera probably will concur with C and possibly also with A. G-K ask about whether we follow the root or the top of the hair, and the dispute is between Meir and sages. Meir in M. Neg. 4:4 holds the opposite view of the white hair in the bright spot. A. [If} there were on it two black hairs or white ones in one follicle (GWMl), it is unfit. In two follicles-it is fit. B. R. Judah says, "Even in two follicles, and they are opposite [adjacent to} one another, it is unfit." C. [If} there were on it two hairsD. their root is red, and their head blackE. R. Yose ben HaMeshulam says, "One shaves the top and does not reckon with the possibilitythat he is liable on accountof shearing." [Maimonides, Red Heifer 1:3: "Since shearing is not here the intention."}. T. 2:7 (Tos. Reng. p. 189, ls. 15-19) (C-E: b. Bekh. 25a)

T.'s version of M. 2:5A-C is a substantial improvement upon M. First of all, it makes use of the same substantive, GWM) = follicle, throughout (y. A.Z. 2:9: KWS = GWM)). So Judah's opinion is not based upon a different word-choice. Second, it gives Judah an opinion contrary to the anonymous rule. Now the issue is, as surmised for M., whether we regard two hairs in a single follicle as one or two. A holds that if there are two hairs in one follicle, the cow is unfit, and if they are in two follicles, the animal is fit. What lies behind A-B is that two hairs in one folicle appear like a kind of baldness ( QRI:IT), so as unclean (TR III, p. 214). Judah then says, to the contrary, that two hairs in two follicles adjacent one another are regarded as a blemish. Accordingly, what T. has done is to assign to Judah M. 2:5C, dropping M. 2:5B entirely. This, as I said, is a substantial correction of M.'s curious version, and Judah takes a position still more extreme than A. C-E correspond to M. 2:5G-K. But the issue now is different. No one in T. is concerned with whether we follow the status of the root or the top of the hair. It is agreed that the root is determinative, just as the sages of M. 2:5K say. The only problem is what we do about the black top of the hair. Yose b. HaMeshulam rules that we simply cut it off; this is not shearing, and we may do so. T. 2:5B concurs that we may cut off the hair of the red cow, but goes so far as to approve shearing, which Yose has carefully excluded in the present case.

CHAPTER THREE

PARAH CHAPTER THREE After the preliminary examination of the sort of cow used for the purification sacrifice, we tum to a full account of the actual process by which the sacrifice of the cow is eff ectecl and its ashes gathered. The narrative style recalls M. Negaim 14:1-10. The formulary preference of the chapter before us is marked and unmistakable: brief and simple declarative sentences, very often even exhibiting smooth diction. The only well-constructed disputes are at M. 3:4 and M. 3:5, neither of which is part of the narrative flow, as we shall see. Otherwise, disagreements are stated as glosses on the narrative, as at M. 3:1, Yose, M. 3:2, Yose (who shifts the verbal preference of the pericope he glosses), M. 3:3, Yose. M. 3:4 has a Yavnean dispute, Yose the Galilean vs. cA