Of Holy Cows and Unholy Calves

Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman

The Red Heifer, or Parah Adumah, is considered one of the most mysterious commandments in the Torah. The reasoning behind its structure – a protocol to purify those who are impure, yet also with the potential to confer impurity on the pure – is considered so elusive that even the wisest of all men, King Solomon, lamented his inability to comprehend the “Parah-dox” (Ecc. 7:23, per Niddah 9a and Yoma 14a).

The mystery extends beyond its basic concept, and includes a contemporary practice that teaches of it. Public Torah reading, for the most part, is a rabbinical obligation. The one exception generally noted is the reading of the commandment to remember the attack of Amalek before Purim (according to many understandings). However, a number of the medieval commentators, such as Rashba (Berakhot 13a), have included another reading as a biblical obligation: “Parashat Parah”, the section describing the Parah Adumah protocol, which appears originally in Parashat Chukkat (Numbers 19:1-22), and is traditionally read right after Purim. This notion is quoted as well in Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 146 and 685:7).

This is a somewhat puzzling assertion – it is unclear where exactly in the Torah we find such a commandment, leading some authorities to reject the possibility (See Magen Avraham, O.C. 685). Others maintain that the entire statement is actually a scribal error, and the reference was not to Parashat Parah but another section referred to with the same initials such as the aforementioned passage about Amalek, or “Parashat Purim”. Still others, hesitant to label as error a statement found in numerous rishonim, offer innovative theories to explain the source. (See, for example, Meshekh Chokhmah to Num.; Torat Moshe: Arukh HaShulchan 685:7; Responsa Divrei Yatziv, Orach Chaim 288).

One theory that is put forward (see Artzot haChaim of the Malbim, Hilkhot Tzitzit, and Responsa Arugat HaBosem, Orach Chaim 205) concerns those select concepts and commandments that the Torah has distinguished with an imperative of “remember” (the zekhirot). Authorities differ as to the precise count of these precepts, but they include prominently such concepts as Amalek, Shabbat, and the exodus from Egypt. And indeed these three find halakhic expression: we remember Amalek through the special Torah reading; Shabbat through kiddush Friday night; and the exodus in mentioned twice a day in the third paragraph of the recitation of the shema, among many other practices.

However, one concept that appears to deserve inclusion seems to lack halakhic representation. The Torah commands: “Remember, do not forget, how you angered Hashem, your God, in the desert.” (Deut. 9:7; see Nachmanides’ commentary). If so, how come no ritual or reading commemorates the incident of the golden calf? Should there not be an implementation in Jewish practice of this obligation?

Therefore, it is suggested, that perhaps this could indicate a source for a biblical obligation of Parashat Parah. The Rabbis perceived a linkage between the commandment of Parah Adumah and the sin of the golden calf. As Rashi quotes (Num, 19:2), “Let the mother come and clean up the soiling of the child”. The adult cow symbolizes the parent, and in atoning for the sin is “cleaning up” the mess of the calf.

Within that understanding, it may be posited that the sin of the calf is indeed commemorated, in an indirect manner. Rather than directly evoke the disgraceful episode of the golden calf, we chose a less embarrassing path, reading of the commandment that atones and not the transgression that incurred guilt. (For practical implications of this suggestion, see Responsa Divrei Yisrael, I, 216, and Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, X, 28:6).

Such a reading would reflect back on the very nature of the obligation of remembering the calf. The focus is not on the sin, but rather on the path back from impurity. The Torah wishes to impress upon the psyche that even in the aftermath of egregious moral failing the route of return remains open.

However, there were those who assumed a different theme in this commandment of remembering (see Kedushat Levi). Some suggest that we are told to constantly recall the instance of the calf as a cautionary measure. At the time of the sin, the Jewish people were on an extremely high level of spirituality, so close to the occasion of the giving of the Torah. At such a moment, one may believe himself invulnerable to temptation or moral error, protected by a bubble of holiness. The incident of the calf must always be remembered to warn that no one is protected in that manner, and that descent to sin can happen whenever inadequate care is taken.

If that is the theme, then, it might seem that using the Parah Adumah as a reminder would be an ineffective method. It may represent atonement, perhaps, but the message of spiritual vigilance would be lacking.

However, it could be suggested that even this motif is present as well in the Parah Adumah. We are well aware of the central paradox of this commandment: is the Red Heifer a vehicle of purity, or of impurity?

It may be that this is precisely where the warning of Parah Adumah lies. At times, one may feel themselves to be on such a high level as to be invulnerable from stumbling. This could have been the mentality of the Jews at the time of the golden calf; at such a point in history, how could they sin? We are bidden to constantly remember this incident in order to remind us that no one is absolved of the responsibility of personal vigilance.

In its own way, the Parah Adumah makes this point as well. If one is involved in a religious activity, in a rite of purification, it might be assumed that one is insulated from any spiritual failing. Yet, we find that even this activity contains the elements of impurity. The message is clear: no context or activity is a spiritual guarantee; it is only through constant, careful, self-awareness that one can ensure that his behavior is actually proper and praiseworthy.

Some note additional elements of the symbolism of the Parah Adumah as a corrective to the sin of the golden calf (see the extensive discussion of R. Reuven Schwartz, Zemanei Reuven, pp. 103-110). Included in this is the fact that as the hardest commandment to understand, this precept represents the necessity to toil in the study and comprehension of the Torah’s commandments. This is particularly relevant as the sin of the calf prompted Moses to shatter the first set of Tablets, and thus necessitated the bestowing of the second set. According to a number of rabbinic thinkers, this also represented a shift in the relationship of the Jews to the study of the Torah, one that would require far more effort to master its messages (see Beit HaLevi, derashot, 18, and others).

This may indicate an additional element as well. The commandment of the Parah Adumah, through its elusive paradox, requires one to acknowledge that there are ideas beyond one’s easy comprehension, that are nonetheless worthy of commitment and appreciation. This is itself a counter to instincts that often lead to rebellion against God and His message. We are reminded, through the commandment of the Red Heifer, to follow King Solomon’s model in an act of true wisdom, and to embrace the Divine mystery.