Chukas: The First Step

וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה

אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁיְהֵא מֵחֲלָצַי, אָמַר לוֹ חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁהוּא מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ

The first Mitzvah found in Parshas Chukas is of course פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה, a Mitzvah which is itself defined as a חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה. As the Gemara in Yoma quoted by Rashi here teaches, the true meaning of פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה is not meant to be understood: גְּזֵרָה הִיא מִלְּפָנַי, אֵין לְךָ רְשׁוּת לְהַרְהֵר אַחֲרֶיהָ. Even Shlomo Hamelech, Shlomo Hamelech himself, the חָכָם מִכָּל אָדָם was eager to learn the reason for this Mitzvah, but was unable to access this part of the Torah, as the Passuk in Koheles says: אָמַרְתִּי אֶחְכָּמָה וְהִיא רְחוֹקָה מִמֶּנִּי.

Yet it seems that there was one person who understood the פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה on a very deep level. The Medrash, on the words וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה tells us: אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה לְךָ אֲנִי מְגַלֶּה טַעַם פָּרָה, אֲבָל לְאַחֵר, חֻקָּה. Hashem told Moshe Rabbeinu that he would be taught the reason for the Mitzvah of פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה, while it would remain a חֻקָּה in the eyes of others. The implication of the Medrash is that the words וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ indicate a specific connection between Moshe Rabbeinu and this Mitzvah, which is explained by the words לְךָ אֲנִי מְגַלֶּה טַעַם פָּרָה.

Although the Medrash does not explain what Moshe Rabbeinu was told at that time, or further expand on the words לְךָ אֲנִי מְגַלֶּה טַעַם פָּרָה, there is another Memra a little later that seems connected to this idea.

The Medrash tells us: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלָה משֶׁה לַמָּרוֹם, שָׁמַע קוֹלוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹסֵק בְּפָרָשַׁת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה. When Moshe Rabbeinu went to be Mekabel to Torah, he heard HKBH learning the Parsha of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה. Specifically related the Medrash, HKBH was saying a הֲלָכָה בְּשֵׁם אוֹמְרָהּ, in the name of R’ Eliezer: עֶגְלָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ וּפָרָה בַּת שְׁתַּיִם, the עֶגְלָה used for עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה is one year old, while the פָּרָה of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה is two years old. The Medrash tells us that when Moshe Rabbeinu heard this, he said רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁיְהֵא מֵחֲלָצַי, asking that R’ Eliezer be one of his descendants. The Medrash concludes, telling us that HKBH acceded to this request, חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁהוּא מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ, as is alluded to by the words in Parshas Yisro: וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

How are we to understand this Medrash? It cannot be a coincidence that the one Mitzvah that Moshe Rabbeinu heard HKBH discussing בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלָה לַמָּרוֹם was פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה. Why was this the case—why did Moshe have to hear Hashem speaking about this Mitzvah?

This question becomes even more pressing if we consider the next words of the Mishna that HKBH was quoting: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עֶגְלָה, בַּת שְׁתַּיִם. וּפָרָה, בַּת שָׁלשׁ אוֹ בַת אַרְבַּע. The Chachamim argue on R’ Eliezer and hold that the עֶגְלָה used for עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה is two years old, while the פָּרָה of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה is either three or four years old. Under the rule of יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים, then, the Halacha follows the Chachamim and not R’ Eliezer. Indeed, the Rambam, at the beginning of הִלְכוֹת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה writes: מִצְוַת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה שֶׁתִּהְיֶה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אוֹ בַּת אַרְבַּע. If so, it emerges that the words of R’ Eliezer that HKBH was quoting are not even the ultimate Halacha. Why, then, are they highlighted? What does this teach us?

We must also understand why Moshe reacted to this moment as the Medrash describes. Why did he wish for R’ Eliezer to be counted among his offspring, as the words יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁיְהֵא מֵחֲלָצַי indicate? Obviously, the fact that HKBH mentioned this Halacha was notable, but why did Moshe so wish that R’ Eliezer come from him—what is the significance of this request?

Even the Passuk that the Medrash brings to show that HKBH agreed to this request is curious. The words וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֱלִיעֶזֶר come from the Passuk at the beginning of Parshas Yisro, when the Torah tells us that Tziporah came along with her father and brought her two sons. The Passuk there first says שֵׁם הָאֶחָד גֵּרְשֹׁם and then וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֱלִיעֶזֶר, when it should have said אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי. The Medrash therefore makes a Drasha, teaching these words allude to another אֱלִיעֶזֶר, namely the one about whom Moshe Rabbeinu said יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁיְהֵא מֵחֲלָצַי. We must, however, understand why the Torah hints at the fulfillment of that request in Parshas Yisro specifically—what is the relevance of that Passuk to the fact that Hashem replied חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁהוּא מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ?

It is interesting to note that the Tanchuma, here, mirrors the Medrash Rabba, with one exception. There we learn that Moshe Rabbeinu asked a question when he heard HKBH saying over the words of R’ Eliezer: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, הָעֶלְיוֹנִים וְתַחְתּוֹנִים שֶׁלְּךָ הֵן וְאַתָּה אוֹמֵר הֲלָכָה בִּשְׁמוֹ שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם. Why, asked Moshe, was HKBH learning the Torah of בָּשָׂר וָדָם? Hashem replied: צַדִּיק אֶחָד עָתִיד לַעֲמֹד בְּעוֹלָמִי, וְעָתִיד לִפְתֹּחַ בְּפָרָשַׁת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּחִלָּה, there is one Tzaddik who will one day begin the learning of Parshas פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה .

What is the meaning of this exchange? Moshe seemed to ask a relevant question: why was HKBH learning the Torah of בָּשָׂר וָדָם when עֶלְיוֹנִים וְתַחְתּוֹנִים שֶׁלְּךָ הֵן? How do the words צַדִּיק אֶחָד עָתִיד לַעֲמֹד בְּעוֹלָמִי, וְעָתִיד לִפְתֹּחַ בְּפָרָשַׁת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּחִלָּה answer this question? Why did HKBH specifically refer to the fact that R’ Eliezer taught the Halachos of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה in replying to Moshe Rabbeinu? How might the detail added by the Tanchuma help us understand the Medrash?

While the Medrash Rabba and Tanchuma are almost identical in the way they relate this conversation between Moshe Rabbeinu and HKBH, there is another Medrash that speaks of a slightly different exchange in a way that might help us understand what Chazal are teaching us here.

The Pesikta Rabbasi also speaks about the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu heard HKBH speaking about the פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה when he was עָלָה לַמָּרוֹם. The Medrash there tells us that when Moshe asked why Hashem was learning these Halachos, HKBH replied: אֵינִי עוֹסֵק אֶלָּא בְּטַהֲרָתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. According to the Pesikta, the reason that Hashem was speaking about the Dinim of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה was specifically because of their relevance to טַהֲרָתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.

This Pesikta helps us understand why HKBH was teaching the Torah related to פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה , because HKBH wished to be עוֹסֵק  בְּטַהֲרָתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, but we still must understand why it was the teaching of R’ Eliezer in particular that Moshe Rabbeinu heard.

Perhaps we can explain these Medrashim through an important insight into the Mitzvah of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה.

The Passuk at the end of Parshas Bo refer to the קָרְבַּן פֶּסַח using the words זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפָּסַח, leading the Medrash Rabba, there, to draw a comparison to פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה , which is of course introduced with the words זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה.

The Medrash poses a rhetorical question: אִי אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ חֻקָּה גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ, becasuse both Mitzvos are introduced with the words זֹאת חֻקַּת it is unclear which is greater. The Medrash resolves this conundrum with a Mashal: if two noblewomen are walking together, it might not immediately clear which is of a higher stature. If, however, one of them escorts the other all the way to her home, it is made apparent that the one receiving the escort is of a greater standing. So to, explains the Medrash, the Mitzvah of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה is greater, שֶׁאוֹכְלֵי פֶּסַח צְרִיכִין לָהּ. Since one who is Tamei cannot participate in the קָרְבַּן פֶּסַח unless he undergoes Taharah, it is clear that the Mitzvah of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה is greater.

This Medrash clearly requires explanation. Why does the fact that both Mitzvos are referred to with the words זֹאת חֻקַּת imply that they have to be compared? Also, what does it even mean that one is greater than the other? What is the message of this Medrash?

R’ Shia’lah Belzer, the second Rebbe of Belz, notes that the word חֹק can sometimes refer to תְשׁוּבָה , and explains the Medrash based on this idea.

When a person does an Avierah, as we all do, it is very difficult for him to be Mechazek himself to do תְשׁוּבָה properly, as he sees the path forward laden with much difficulty. That said, there is a Mitzvah of תְשׁוּבָה , which is like any other Mitzvah in the Torah, and one must therefore take the appropriate steps even if it won’t lead to a full תְשׁוּבָה . This, explains the Rebbe, is the חֹק aspect of תְשׁוּבָה : we must engage in the Mitzvah even if the path to success is not clear.

The Rebbe continues, explaining that there are two basic parts of תְשׁוּבָה . The first relates to the action itself: one must understand the Aviera that was done, and come to a determination not to repeat the Aveirah. The second is more abstract: a person must reflect on the fact that during the time that he was doing the Avirah, he could have been engaging in further Torah and Mitzvos, improving his relationship with Hashem, an opportunity now lost.

If a person wishes to do תְשׁוּבָה , he can achieve the first part of the process mostly on his own—it may not be simple, but if he makes a true determination to avoid the Aveirah in the future, HKBH will help him reach that goal. When it comes to the second part, however, success is not entirely in his hands. Even if he wishes to repair the rupture in his connection to HKBH, which exists because of the way he used his time, he cannot do so unless HKBH wishes for the repair to be made. This, explains the Rebbe, is what we Daven for each day: הֲשִׁיבֵנוּ אָבִינוּ לְתוֹרָתֶךָ וְקָרְבֵנוּ מַלְכֵּנוּ לַעֲבוֹדָתֶךָ וְהַחֲזִירֵנוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה שְׁלֵמָה לְפָנֶיךָ. Even if we do all that is in out power to do תְשׁוּבָה , we cannot be successful if HKBH does not bring us back to him—there is, in a sense, a part of תְשׁוּבָה that is not in our hands.

These two parts of תְשׁוּבָה , continues the Rebbe, are represented by the קָרְבַּן פֶּסַח and פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה .

In Parhas Bo, Moshe Rabbeinu first introduces the Mitzvah of קָרְבַּן פֶּסַח with the words מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם צֹאן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶם וְשַׁחֲטוּ הַפָּסַח, and the Mechilta tells us what this meant: מִשְׁכוּ יְדֵיכֶם מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהִדָּבְקוּ בַּמִּצְווֹת. Moshe Rabbeinu was telling Klal Yisroel that the קָרְבַּן פֶּסַח was an inflection point—it was at that point that they would remove themselves from עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה and attach themselves to Mitzvos. This, explains the Rebbe, represents the first part of תְשׁוּבָה . The קָרְבַּן פֶּסַח reminds us that we are to remove ourselves from Aveiros, וְהִדָּבְקוּ בַּמִּצְווֹת, attaching ourselves to Torah and Mitzvos. This the part of תְשׁוּבָה that we can accomplish largely on our own, with the help of HKBH.

The פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה , on the other hand, represents the parts of תְשׁוּבָה that we cannot achieve of our own devices. If a person is טָּמֵא, his desire to become טָהוֹר is irrelevant. Even the steps that he takes, as instructed by the Torah, do not themselves make him טָהוֹר. Rather, HKBH tells us what to do so that he can מְטַהֵר us—we must take the requisite steps, but in the end, it is only HKBH that can provide the ultimate טִהֲרָהּ. This is reflective of the parts of תְשׁוּבָה that can only be reached through HKBH, as represented by the words וְהַחֲזִירֵנוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה שְׁלֵמָה . If we follow the path of תְשׁוּבָה , then HKBH allows us to become closer to him, repairing the rift in our relationship.

This is why the Medrash tells us that פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה is greater than קָרְבַּן פֶּסַח: even once one does the תְשׁוּבָה of קָרְבַּן פֶּסַח and takes the steps of מִשְׁכוּ יְדֵיכֶם מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהִדָּבְקוּ בַּמִּצְווֹת, full תְשׁוּבָה is not achieved. He still needs the part of תְשׁוּבָה represented by the פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה , which can only be brought about in the manner of וְהַחֲזִירֵנוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה שְׁלֵמָה . Indeed, גְדוֹלָה הַפָּרָה שֶׁאוֹכְלֵי פֶּסַח צְרִיכִין לָהּ.

Based on this idea, we can understand the Medrashim related to פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה .

When Moshe Rabbeinu was עָלָה לַמָּרוֹם he heard HKBH discussing the Halachos of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה , and was told that this was because HKBH is עוֹסֵק בְּטַהֲרָתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. This referred not only to the טִהֲרָהּ of the פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה , which can only be brought about by HKBH, but also to the טִהֲרָהּ brought about by the words וְהַחֲזִירֵנוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה שְׁלֵמָה . HKBH speaks about the Halachos of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה because it represents such an important concept: אֵינִי עוֹסֵק אֶלָּא בְּטַהֲרָתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. Our ultimate טִהֲרָהּ from the damage caused by our Aveiros can only be brought about by HKBH.

This reality is highlighted by the story related by the Medrash and the Tanchuma here as well.

When Moshe heard HKBH speaking about the words of R’ Eliezer, he wondered why and Hashem told him: צַדִּיק אֶחָד עָתִיד לַעֲמֹד בְּעוֹלָמִי, וְעָתִיד לִפְתֹּחַ בְּפָרָשַׁת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּחִלָּה. The words of R’ Eliezer quoted in the Medrash, עֶגְלָה בַּת שְׁנָתָהּ וּפָרָה בַּת שְׁתַּיִם, are the opening words of Meseches Parah—they are the words with which all the Halachos begin. They are not Halacha Pesuka, as we have seen, but that is not the only goal of Limud Torah. The words of R’ Eliezer convey the idea that sometimes person must take the steps that he can, and the rest is in the hands of HKBH. This is highlighted by the words עָתִיד לִפְתֹּחַ בְּפָרָשַׁת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּחִלָּה—it was because R’ Eliezer was פְתֹּחַ תְּחִלָּה when it came to פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה that HKBH taught his words specifically. The idea of being פְתֹּחַ תְּחִלָּה is central to the message of the פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה , and it was this effort that HKBH wished to celebrate.

When Moshe Rabbeinu heard the words of HKBH, he understood the message of אֵינִי עוֹסֵק אֶלָּא בְּטַהֲרָתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל and עָתִיד לִפְתֹּחַ בְּפָרָשַׁת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּחִלָּה and that it is central not only to the Mitzvah of פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה but to תְשׁוּבָה and Avodas Hashem. he therefore hoped that R’ Eliezer, who personified this message, would be one of his offspring. HKBH replied חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁהוּא מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ, and the Medrash points to the words וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֱלִיעֶזֶר. Perhaps this is because in naming his son, Moshe Rabbienu himself expressed this concept, as the Passuk there continues: כִּי־אֱלֹקֵי אָבִי בְּעֶזְרִי וַיַּצִּלֵנִי מֵחֶרֶב פַּרְעֹה. Moshe named his son based on the recognition that he could not accomplish without HKBH, itself an expression of the ideal embodied by the פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה and the reality of טַהֲרָתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.