CHUKAT_NUMBERS XIX – XXII,1

The first part of our weekly reading is about the Law of the Parah adumah, a vermilion cow without any macula, which never had a yoke put on. The title of the Parashah comes from the word Chok, which means precept or law. We find this word in the book of Exodus (XV, 25) … Sham sam lo chok umishpat…, which means, “… there he gave the people laws and statutes…”. In that chapter we learned that our ancestors received certain fundamental laws in a place called Marah, before the revelation at Mount Sinai. According to Mechilta, a Midrash oriented towards the legal part (Halacha) of the biblical text, the word Chok alludes to the laws of Shabbat and to forbidden sexual relations. The term Mishpat refers to the obligation of honoring parents and, among others, to laws on harm done to another and the subsequent punishment received.

According to the Chachamim in the Talmud, the word Mishpat refers to laws, which, had they not been written, we could somehow conceive them, such as prohibitions with regard to idolatry, certain sexual relations, murder, robbery and blasphemy. The word Chok refers to prohibitions such as not eating pork and not wearing a combination of wool and linen. Like the law of Chalitsah, which is practiced in the case of a childless widow, the process of purification of the leper and the selection of the scapegoat. These laws would not be practiced, were it not for their inclusion in the Torah.

According to Rashi, Mishpat has to do with laws that are in consonance with our sense of justice, that is, we would probably have legislated them by ourselves, had the Torah not ordained them. While Chok deals with ordinances questioned by our own inclination toward evil and by other people who fail to see any meaning to these laws.

Basically, we are faced with two different types of Mitsvot. Those that seem to have a rational purpose which we place under the heading of Mishpat and those for which we cannot find valid or logical reasons (according to certain intuitive principles of reasoning that are probably impossible to define in a rigorous and sustained way) and to which we refer under the heading of Chok.

Our brief analysis is due to the instruction about the ashes of the vermilion cow that are to be used in the purification of a Tame, a person who is in a state of ritual impurity for having had contact with a corpse, for example. At the same time, our text states that the person who prepares these ashes also enters a state of ritual impurity. The immediate question: How is it possible that contact with the ashes of our Parah adumah serve to purify the impure and cause at the same time, the impurity of the one who is responsible for its preparation?

The response of the Chachamim is that we are facing a Chok, a precept that does not admit human logical inquiry. It is simply the result of the Divine Will, which is guided according to a process of reasoning entirely different from our own and which is beyond the reach of the human intellect. Our view is that even those norms that are beyond our comprehension make sense to God’s higher intelligence. The problem lies in the limitation of our intellect to understand the deep meaning of a Mitsvah in its generic sense.

In fact, we are faced with one of the most complex dilemmas of any religious denomination. Is there a logical basis for religious norms? By claiming that explanations are beyond our ability to understand, aren’t we suggesting that laws lack logic?

The Chachamim were sensitive to these difficulties and on numerous occasions offer different approaches to these Mitsvot. A Hebrew became a slave because he had stolen and for not having been able to restore the value or the object, or by a personal decision. In order to explain why a hole is made in the ear of the slave who wishes to remain with his master at the end of the obligatory six years, says Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai: “the ear that heard on Mount Sinai, thrice and yet disobeyed, to be pierced with a hole”. In the case of his voluntary entry into slavery, says the same sage, “the ear that heard on Mount Sinai that (the children of Israel)are My servants and not servants of other servants, let him have his ear pierced with a hole.”

In his eagerness to explain Judaism to the intellectual world of his time, Philo of Alexandria divides the Mitsvot according to the results of their fulfillment. Some of the Mitsvot are intended to promote a better knowledge of Providence and are part of God’s service. Other Mitsvot have the function of guiding us towards virtues such as justice and righteousness. For Saadiah Gaon there are two kinds of Mitsvot. The rational and the revealed. 

Even in the case of the rational Mitsvot, Divine revelation is necessary because our intellect could only deduce the general principles from them. In the case of the revealed Mitsvot, our fulfillment of these is a manifestation of our submission to the Will of the Creator. In the case of the latter, although we will never be able to penetrate the Intellect of God to know His judgment, we have the capacity for reflection and reasoning that allow us to find a purpose in human life.

Rambam is very emphatic in his view that there is a logical explanation for all the commandments. Our fault lies in our insufficient knowledge or in the limitations of our intellect. Therefore, the human being must aim for a better understanding of all divine laws. The purpose of the Mitsvot is the establishment of a just social order that allows for the spiritual, emotional and ethical development of the human being. From that perspective, Rambam says, we must study the stories we find in the Torah because they have a didactic purpose.

The laws of the Torah have the purpose of perfecting our spirit and the well-being of our body. While the well-being of our bodies is a function of a just society, spiritual well-being is obtained through faith and following correct right judgments. According to Rambam, the purpose of the Chukim is to guard against idolatry and safeguard us from false doctrines and creeds. Many of these rules are a barrier against idolatry.

Rashi on the other hand, and several of the Tosafists, lean towards a somewhat fundamentalist view, claiming that there are Mitsvot that simply lack rational explanation. They cite, for example, a law requiring the mother to be removed from the nest before one takes possession of the chicks. According to the Talmud, who argues that compassion is the motivating factor in this law, is falsifying the intention of this law, simply because the Torah does not mention it. Ramban argues that certain privileged personalities of our past, such as Avraham, were told the reason for the Chukim.

There are Mitsvot whose meaning escape our intellect. However, laws, once enacted, are independent of the reasoning that led to their enactment. On a religious level, the fulfillment of Mitsvot is intended for our spiritual.

Perhaps we could conclude our brief foray into this field of Ta’amei hamitsvot, or search for purpose of the laws, by noting that part of the fulfillment of these, lies effectively in the constant inquiry to reach a better understanding of their intentions. Talmud Torah, which is the study and the noblest good in our tradition, also requires the longing of the human being to understand the Divine Will. And what better way to approach the understanding of God’s Will than through the Mitsvot which are the legitimate expression of the Divine mandate.

MITSVAH: ORDINANCE OF THE TORAH IN THIS PARASHA

CONTAINS 3 POSITIVE MITSVOT

1. Numbers 19:2 Laws governing the Parah adumah, ” vermilion cow”
2. Numbers 19:14 Laws on ritual impurity due to contact with a corpse
3. Numbers 19:19, 21 Laws about splashing water of atonement that purifies the one who is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse