The Parah Adumah is famous as the quintessential example of paradox in Judaism. Its entire function is to render people tahor and yet everyone associated with it becomes tamei. The priest who slaughters it becomes tamei, the priest who burns it becomes tamei, the priest who gathers up the ashes becomes tamei, and the priest who sprinkles the mixture of ash and water becomes tamei.
Except the last one on that list is wrong. On verse 21 of the chapter, Rashi writes as follows:
רַבּוֹתֵינוּ אָמְרוּ שֶׁהַמַּזֶּה טָהוֹר, וְזֶה בָא לְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַנּוֹשֵׂא מֵי חַטָּאת טָמֵא טֻמְאָה חֲמוּרָה לְטַמֵּא בְגָדִים שֶׁעָלָיו, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּנּוֹגֵעַ, וְזֶה שֶׁהוֹצִיא בִּלְשׁוֹן “מַזֶּה”, לוֹמַר לְךָ שֶׁאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָהֶן שִׁעוּר הַזָּאָה
This is not an occult source, but – and I encourage you to try this out for yourself – if you ask your acquaintances what happens to the cohen who sprinkles the ashes of the parah adumah, 9 out of 10 will tell you he becomes tamei. On top of that, when informing your friend otherwise, you will generally be greeted with total incredulity until you shove a Chumash in front of his face and force him to read the same words he read three days previously.
This situation suggests that there is something quite seriously wrong with the present system of Jewish mass education. Rashi is the alpha and omega of childhood Chumash study and weekly study of parsha with Rashi every week is close to universal, at least in theory. Since this verse is read twice a year (Parshat Hukat and Parshat Parah) one can reasonably expect that the average orthodox Jew of 30 would have read these words of Rashi on at least a dozen or so occasions. The words רבותינו אמרו שהמזה טהור can hardly be said to be obscure and they are close enough to the beginning of the parsha that readers should still be paying attention. Not only do most orthodox Jews not know what Rashi says, however, they *know* with great confidence its opposite. What does it say about our basic format for education that a more effective way to learn Torah is to read blogs? (This, by the way, is how I found out about it too).
That is not quite the whole story, however. The main reason why most Jews are convinced that the מזה becomes tamei is that they have heard a long list of drashot on the paradoxical nature of the parah adumah that purifies the impure and defiles the pure, a tradition based on the yotzrot that belabour this point rather more than seems strictly necessary. However, if we are looking for a limmud zechut then we need look no further than the verse Rashi is commenting on:
וְהָיְתָה לָּהֶם לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם וּמַזֵּה מֵי־הַנִּדָּה יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְהַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵי הַנִּדָּה יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃
At this point, though, the same people who were serenely confident that the מזה becomes tamei will gasp in horror at the very suggestion that one might prefer the plain meaning of a pasuq to the explanation of Hazal. As a result of the ongoing trauma of the Qaraite schism, a rather odd tendency has developed according to which reading the Torah in the normal sense of the word is considered a mark of impiety and authentic Judaism consists of constantly searching out the most counter-intuitive and implausible readings of holy writ. In order to stop the mouths of accusers, therefore, I will quote Aderet Eliyahu:
ואגב אמר רבינו הגאון לכאורה הוא תמוה שבתורה כתוב מפורש שהמזה טמא ורז״ל דרשו שהמזה טהור אך אמר רבינו שהדין הוא אותם שהיו מטוהרים על גב חטאת לא היו מטמאים כלל את מי חטאת בשום אופן ואפי’ שכשכו ידיהם לתוך המים וזהו מה שכתו’ והזה הטהור על הטמא דווקא טהור כה״ג ומה שכתוב כאן ומזה מי הנדה הוא טמא באמת בין מזה ובין נושא אם אינם טבולים לחטאת אבל הטעם שהמזה פסול הוא מטעם נושא ושיהיה בו שיעור הזייה:
That’s a bit hard to follow, so I’ll also quote Rav Ya’aqov Tzvi Mecklenburg’s elucidation:
אמנם הדין הוא כן, מי שטיהר עצמו לחטאת אין מי חטאת מטמאין אותו לא במגע ולא במשא, רק מי שטיהר עצמו לתרומה שעדיין נקרא טמא לחטאת לפי שלא טבל לחטאת, לזה המי חטאת מטמאין אותו לכל דבר. ואמרם המזה מי חטאת טהור, הוא בסתם מזה שהוא מטהר עצמו לחטאת. אמנם מזה דקרא הוא בשלא טיהר עצמו לחטאת, אף שהוא טהור לתרומה, אם זה יזה מי חטאת הם מטמאין אותו, וטומאתו הוא מטעם שהוא נושא מי חטאת ואינו טמא רק כשיש בו שיעור הזאה (עי’ בדברי הגר”א בפי’ למשנה דפרה פ”ט מ”ח ופ”י מ”ו. וכאן בפי’ על התורה הלשון קצת משובש).
So we see that the Gra (who was at least as frum as you) was troubled by the obvious contradiction between the explanation of Hazal and the words of the Torah, solving the problem by restricting Hazal’s explanation to a particular case (when the cohen had purified himself specifically to the level required for מי חטאת), leaving the Torah to talk about another case (when the cohen was pure, but at a lower level). Rav Mecklenburg himself was not quite satisfied with that answer and offered his own ingenious solution, as did the Malbim. Is there, though, a possibility that Reactionary Judaism might throw some light on the topic? (Spoiler: yes).
Let’s start with by looking at the two sources in the Bavli upon which Rashi based his comment Yoma 14a and Niddah 9a:
דתניא (במדבר יט, יט) והזה הטהור על הטמא על הטמא טהור ועל הטהור טמא דברי ר’ עקיבא וחכמים אומרים אין הדברים הללו אמורין אלא בדברים המקבלים טומאה … ור’ עקיבא היינו דקאמר שלמה (קהלת ז, כג) אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני ורבנן ההוא למזה ולמזין עליו טהור ונוגע בהן טמא ומזה טהור והכתיב (במדבר יט, כא) ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו מאי מזה נוגע והכתיב מזה והא כתיב נוגע ועוד מזה בעי כיבוס בגדים נוגע לא בעי כבוס בגדים אלא מאי מזה נושא ונכתוב רחמנא נושא מ”ט כתיב מזה הא קמ”ל דבעינן שיעור הזאה
מאי טעמא דר”מ דכתיב (איוב יד, ד) מי יתן טהור מטמא לא אחד ורבנן א”ר יוחנן זו שכבת זרע שהוא טמא ואדם הנוצר ממנו טהור ור”א אומר אלו מי הנדה שהמזה ומזין עליו טהור ונוגע טמא ומזה טהור והכתיב (במדבר יט, כא) ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו מאי מזה נוגע והכתיב מזה והכתיב נוגע ועוד מזה בעי כבוס נוגע לא בעי כבוס אלא מאי מזה נושא וליכתוב נושא קמ”ל דעד דדרי כשיעור הזאה
Both sources are interjections into rather complicated sugyot. In each case, one side of a tanaitic dispute is justified with reference to a pasuq from Nach taken to indicate, respectively, the existence of a Torah law that defies human comprehension, or of an occasion in which something pure is derived from something impure. In order to defend the other side of the mahloqet, the Gemara therefore needs to find some alternative referent for the pasuk as so interpreted.1. The solution offered by the Gemara is that these two pesukim refer to the paradoxical nature of the מי נדה/חטאת which make those who touch them tamei, though the sprinkler and the sprinkled upon remain or become tahor.
At this point, the Gemara deals with the problem that we have identified, namely that this fact is not only paradoxical, but seems to contradict the Torah itself, which says that the מזה must wash his clothes (that is to say, he becomes an av hatumah who can defile keilim). The Gemara first suggests that the word מזה actually refers to one who touches rather than sprinkles the ash-water, but rejects this is on the very reasonable grounds that the whole point of the pasuq seems to be to distinguish the case of the מזה from the נוגע. The Gemara’s second attempt is to explain that מזה actually refers to one who lifts the ash-water. This gets past the first explanation, but runs into the obvious objection: if the Torah means נושא then why not just say so? The Gemara answers that the substitution of the word מזה for נושא comes to teach that lifting the ash-water doesn’t impart tumah unless there is sufficient water to perform the rite of sprinkling.
Let us now make some simple observations about these two sources. First, the ‘fact’ that the sprinkler and sprinkled upon are tahor is introduced as a known datum, not something that is derived from biblical exegesis. Secondly, the correct explanation of verse 21 is clearly not known, but something that the compilers felt it necessary to work out through a somewhat less than exhaustive process of elimination. Thirdly, no tanaitic source is cited in support either of the Gemara’s premise or of its exegesis.
The third observation has a simple but disquieting explanation: there is no tanaitic source that says the מזה is tahor. Mishnah Parah is a fairly long tractate of 96 halachot (to which we can add 80 baraitot in the Tosefta) and hardly one that can be said to be sparing in details. The fact that the מזה is tahor is surely important enough to warrant inclusion; if the Bavli had not happened to mention it, then we could hardly have worked it out from exegesis ourselves.
At this point, if your warning sirens are not going off, then it’s about time you had them checked. If we look only a little further, we find that not only is there no tanaitic source affirming the purity of the sprinkler, but that Sifrei says the precise opposite:
ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו – בין מים למים הכתוב מדבר. וחילק הכתוב בין מים שיש בהם כדי הזייה – ובין מים שאין בהם כדי הזייה. שהמים שיש בהם כדי הזייה – מטמא אדם לטמא בגדים; ומים שאין בהם כדי הזיה – מטמא אדם לטמא אוכלים ומשקים. אתה אומר לכך בא, או לא בא אלא לחלק בין מזה לנוגע, שהמזה שלא נגע מטמא בגדים, והמזה נוגע דין הוא שיטמא בגדים? והרי דברים ק”ו: ומה אם המזה שאין נוגע מטמא בגדים, המזה נוגע דין הוא שיטמא בגדים!
The Sifrei makes a similar d’rasha to the one we saw before. Whereas the Bavli says that מי הטאת do not defile one who lifts them unless their volume is large enough to perform הזייה, Sifrei claims that the waters below the requisite shiur make those who touch them a rishon letumah, whereas those above render him an av hatumah. The d’rashot do not contradict each other, of course, and both of them are quite true.2 While the content of the two d’rashot is similar in the two sources, however, their assumed significance in context is totally opposite. In Sifrei, the d’rasha provides additional information to that conveyed by an ordinary reading of the verse; in the Bavli, by contrast, the d’rasha displaces and replaces the p’shat explanation. In the first source, ‘midrashic’ exegesis has a complementary relationship with ordinary literary analysis, in the later one, the relationship is antagonistic.
We should remember, though, that the exegesis in the Bavli is not part of a project to explore the verse through Rabbinic hermeneutics and see what comes out, but an attempt to defend a known halachic datum from exegetical critique. The next question we must ask, therefore, is where this tradition came from. As we have seen, it is not tanaitic, and, since no such claim is found in the Yerushalmi, it looks like a specifically Babylonian idea. We have seen elsewhere, that the Bavli records as historical facts what are in fact urban legends resulting from over-readings of tanaitic sources. I’m inclined to think that this is what has happened here.
At this point, however, we must pause because the pious reader will, far from being pacified, be appalled by this attempt to undermine the words of Hazal. The reactionary answer is quite simple: Hazal is not a blob, but rather a collection of hundreds of Rabbis who lived in different countries, cultures, and environments over more than 600 years. The compilers of the Sifrei have no less right to the title of Hazal than the compilers of the Bavli. If pushed, I would argue that the opposite is true, but there is no need for that. If we simply look at all the sources and assess them honestly and openly, we can see that what Sifrei says here is more reasonable than what the Bavli says there, without any need for general theorizing on the hierarchy of classical Rabbinic authority.
We have, then, turned almost full circle. What at first appeared to be a case of mass error resulting from carelessness turns out to be an example of clinging to truth in the face of apparently irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Those who are so minded may choose to see this as a sign of providence or that the heart of the Jewish people cleaves to Torat Emet when their head is not paying attention. I will close, though, by turning back to Rav Mecklenburg:
אמנם בספרי כאן אמרו הכתוב חילק בין מים שיש בהם כדי הזאה לאין בהם, ע”ש. עכ”פ מבואר לשון המקרא עד שהכתב והקבלה תואמים יחדיו:
After a lengthy, learned, and closely worded interpretation of the verse designed to defend the Bavli’s claims, Rav Mecklenburg notes that a simpler explanation exists in Sifrei, but that this is not relevant to his purpose, which was to reconcile the text of the Torah with received tradition (הכתב והקבלה, the title of his commentary). Rav Mecklenburg’s peirush is in many ways masterful, but perhaps I will be permitted to suggest that he set himself the wrong target. Before reconciling tradition with scripture, we should first ascertain whether the received tradition in question is true. On top of everything else, it makes the job a lot easier.
Leave a Reply