Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

This is ‘chukath’ (the statute of) the law. “Since Satan and the nations of the world ridicule Israel, saying, ‘What is [the meaning of] this commandment [of the Red Heifer]?’ therefore the Torah uses the term chukah (statute) in connection with it, [meaning]: ‘It is a decree from before Me, and you have no permission to question it.’” This is Rashi’s language, taken from the words of our Rabbis. 7; Yoma 67b. See also Vol. II, p. 208, Note 236. Now I have already written in connection with the goat that is sent away [to Azazel the reason] why the nations of the world should taunt us about this [commandment] more than [they taunt us about] the rest of the offerings which effect atonement, and some of which bring about purification — such as the offerings of a man [or woman] who suffered a flux,, 15:13-15; 25-31. or of a woman after childbirth., 12:6-8. [The reason is] that since [the procedure of the Red Heifer] is performed outside [the Sanctuary], it appears to the nations that it is slaughtered to the satyrs which are in the open field., 17:5-7. But the truth is that [the Red Heifer] is brought to remove the spirit of impurity, and the burning thereof outside [the Sanctuary Court] is like the sweet savor, 1:9 etc. — In other words, as long as the observance is in accordance with the word of G-d, it does not matter if it is done within the Sanctuary Court or outside thereof, for both were equally commanded by Him. [of the offerings brought within the Sanctuary Court]. The reason for the impurity conveyed by a corpse is [due to man’s sin committed through] the instigation of the serpent, for those who die by “the Divine Kiss” do not [in fact] convey impurity according to the law, this being the [sense of the] saying of the Rabbis: “The righteous do not convey impurity [when dead].” It is for this reason that Scripture states, This is ‘chukath’ of the law, meaning: [this is] that which is “hollowed out” — “to engrave, hollow out.” from the [Written] Torah, namely, the Oral Torah. Therefore it is a [female] heifer and must be red, [symbolic] of the attribute of justice. It is given to Eleazar inasmuch as it must be slaughtered before him, even [though it may actually be slaughtered] by a non-priest, because the deputy High Priest [i.e., Eleazar] supervises the performance thereof, so that it should be done in accordance with his intentions, and so that they should not entertain any improper thoughts about it, as do the nations [of the world] and Satan [as mentioned above]. Now this section [of the Red Heifer] completes the laws of the priests [and as such belongs in the Book of Leviticus]. However, it is written here after [the preceding section dealing with] the gifts to the priests, in order to declare that the purification of Israel must also be effected through the priest [just as atonement for sin is effected through the offerings which are offered on the altar by the priests]. THIS IS THE STATUTE OF THE LAW WHICH THE ETERNAL COMMANDED. The reason for this expression [when it should have said “that I commanded,” since G-d is the Speaker of these words], is similar to the verse, And unto Moses He said: ‘Come up unto the Eternal’ [where it should likewise have said: “Come up unto Me”]. Or it may be that this verse must be re-arranged [in order to be interpreted properly], its sense being: “Speak unto the children of Israel: This is the statute of the law which the Eternal hath commanded, saying etc.” … With the sense of the verse being as Ramban transposes it, we can understand the use of the phrase which ‘the Eternal’ hath commanded, because this is part of the statement which Moses is to make to the people, when conveying G-d’s command. Hence it cannot say: “which I have commanded.”
Scripture states dabeir [— in the singular — dabeir (speak) unto the children of Israel] and not dabru [in the plural, although the section begins: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron], because Moses was the main [person who spoke to the people, “or it may mean that G-d spoke to Moses that he should tell it to Aaron, as our Rabbis have explained” (see a similar case in Leviticus 13:1) and in this sense Moses was the main person involved in the Divine communication].
THEY SHALL TAKE UNTO THEE. The reason [why the verse says] “unto thee” [Moses] is [because G-d first commanded] that they should do this in the wilderness for that particular time, and afterwards He commanded that it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them for a statute for ever, meaning that they should do so throughout their generations. Similarly [we find the expression unto thee in the following verses]: that they bring ‘unto thee’ pure olive oil, and afterwards it says, it shall be a statute for ever throughout their generations., Verse 21. Here too, the original command was for Moses’ lifetime [hence “unto thee”], and afterwards it was repeated to make it obligatory throughout the generations. Scripture states: And ‘ye’ shall give, and not “and ‘thou’ shalt give,” in order to include Aaron together with Moses and thereby to honor him [Aaron], for both of them were to command Eleazar to have it slaughtered before him. Or it may be that He said and ‘ye’ shall give [because it refers] to many [givers] — those now and those of subsequent generations, and the meaning is that Eleazar who [was in charge of it being] slaughtered [although it could actually be slaughtered by anybody, as explained above] was to take it from the possession of the court, and they were to give it to him so that it should be done properly and in accordance with their intention; in a similar manner to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]: “And who prepared them [the ashes of the Red Heifer]? The first one was prepared by Moses our teacher; the second one was prepared by Ezra, and seven were prepared after Ezra’s time. And who prepared them? Simon the Just and Jochanan the High Priest prepared two each etc.”, 3:4).

AND YE SHALL GIVE HER UNTO ELEAZAR THE PRIEST. “[The proper fulfillment of] the commandment is [only when it is done] by the deputy High Priest.” This is Rashi’s language. But his intention is not to say that the obligation to perform this commandment [always] devolves upon the deputy High Priest rather than devolving upon the High Priest or any ordinary priest; but that this was a [special] temporary command in the case of the first Red Heifer that it should be done by Eleazar, who [happened to be] the deputy High Priest. In the words of the Sifre: 123. “‘Scripture here teaches that the Red Heifer was to be prepared by the deputy High Priest. This is made evident [by the fact] that [although] Aaron was still living, Eleazar [who was the deputy High Priest] burnt the heifer. And ye shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar the priest. This [first heifer] was to be prepared by Eleazar, [“her” — and you shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar]. Hence Rabbi Meir explains that it means that it was this first Red Heifer that was to be done by Eleazar, whereas all others must be done only by the High Priest. Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer the son of Yaakov, however, are of the opinion that the word othah teaches us that only this Red Heifer was to be done by the deputy High Priest, whereas in subsequent generations it may be done even by an ordinary priest. Ramban further on explains the deeper significance of this whole matter. but all other heifers [in subsequent generations] must be prepared by the High Priest.’ These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer the son of Yaakov say: ‘this one was done by Eleazar [the deputy], and all other heifers may be done either by the High Priest or an ordinary priest.’” The purport of this is to tell us that this commandment, because of its profound secret, deserved to be given to the greatest of the priests, and yet it was not given to Aaron [but to Eleazar the deputy]! Perhaps this was because of his [Aaron’s] greatness, for he was the holy one of the Eternal. and His pious one, who effects atonement in His Sanctuary; therefore He did not want to give him a service which is performed outside [the Sanctuary]. Or perhaps [this was to be done by Eleazar] in order to crown him, and initiate him during the lifetime of his father by means of one of the commandments of the high priesthood. Or it may be [that the performance thereof was not given to Aaron] as a punishment for [his part in the incident of] the [golden] calf, as Rabbi Moshe the Preacher wrote., Note 146. Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, treated Aaron also as a prophet in this commandment, and he and Moses our teacher were to give it [the Red Heifer] to Eleazar, who was the greatest of the priests after Aaron, and he was the one who had been anointed with the Oil of Anointment.. See further Ramban on Leviticus 10:6 (Vol. III, p. 117) where he clearly states that in a certain respect Aaron’s sons were considered like the High Priest because of their anointment during the days of the consecration. This is [therefore] a hint that in subsequent generations the Red Heifer was to be prepared by the greatest of the priests, namely the High Priest. Similarly we have been taught in a Mishnah: “If the Heifer of Purification was not slaughtered by the High Priest, it is invalid. But Rabbi Yehudah says it is valid.” And in the Gemara of Tractate Yoma [it is stated]: “And ye shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar the priest. ‘Her’ [i.e., this first Red Heifer] you shall give to Eleazar [the deputy High Priest], but in subsequent generations it is not to be given to Eleazar. Some Rabbis say that in subsequent generations it is to be given to an ordinary priest, and some say that in subsequent generations it is to be given [only] to the High Priest.” This [latter statement] is the opinion of the anonymous Mishnah [quoted above, namely that if the Red Heifer was not slaughtered by the High Priest it is invalid], and it is the correct opinion. According to the Sages who are of the opinion that during later generations it may be prepared [even] by an ordinary priest, [the reason why here] Eleazar was commanded to do it is because there was no [ordinary] priest, for it would not be fitting that his younger brother [Ithamar] should take precedence over him [and at that time there were only three priests — Aaron, and his two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar].

WHEN A MAN DIETH IN A TENT. The meaning thereof is: “When a man dies, and he is now [lying] in a tent” [even though he may have died outside the tent and was later on brought in]; or it may be that Scripture speaks about the usual circumstances [and people usually die inside a building], but the same law applies if he died outside and they brought him into the tent. All that come into the tent and all that is in the tent — this includes the vessels therein and the tent itself, as He said [further on], and he shall sprinkle upon the tent and upon all the vessels and upon the persons that were there. Scripture mentions the tent in order to let us know that the tent itself is rendered unclean for seven days, and [in order to become clean again] requires sprinkling [with the waters of purification]. Furthermore, the Israelites were tent-dwellers in the wilderness and Scripture spoke of the usual [circumstances at that time], because the commandment applied [both] immediately and for later generations; but the same law applies to a house and to everything that “covers” [a corpse], namely that they convey uncleanness to all the vessels and persons that are there, except that a house which is [permanently] attached to the ground cannot itself become impure [unlike a tent which is also defiled]. Now Scripture stated [that] a corpse [conveys] impurity by contact. — See Vol. III, p. 129, Note 150, on the interchangeable use of the terms “clean,” and “unclean,” or “pure” and “impure.” and by an ‘ohel,’ but does not mention [that it also conveys impurity to the person who] carries it. Our Rabbis, however, deduced it by a kal vachomer from [the law of] a dead animal, (see Note 32), nonetheless does convey impurity [to one who] carries it — surely a corpse [which conveys impurity for seven days, and also by ohel, conveys impurity to one who carries it]! And just as in the case of a dead animal, touching it conveys impurity until the [same] evening and carrying it [likewise] conveys impurity until the evening, so also in the case of a corpse, where touching conveys impurity for seven days, carrying also conveys impurity for seven days” (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tumath Hameith, 1:2). and have included it in [the law of] uncleanness of seven days, just like [one who] touches [a corpse]. This is also in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture, for He mentioned in the case of one who dies [of his own accord] or was killed that he who touches him becomes unclean for seven days,. — See Vol. III, p. 129, Note 150, on the interchangeable use of the terms “clean,” and “unclean,” or “pure” and “impure.” and [requires] sprinkling [with the waters of purification]; and it is already known that [the word] “touching” in the Torah refers to actual personal contact, and to contact through another object, that is, by carrying it [in which case he is “touching” the object carried by means of the intervening object].

AND WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH IN THE OPEN FIELD. “Our Rabbis have said that this includes the upper board and the side board [of a coffin, when found in the open field]. And the plain meaning [of the verse] is: in the open field where there are no tents, a corpse conveys uncleanness [only] by contact.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the opinion of the Sages the [law that the] upper and side boards of the coffin [convey uncleanness] is not derived from Scripture, but is a tradition [handed down by Moses who received it at Sinai]. Therefore a Nazirite [who has become impure by coming into contact with them] is not subject to [the law of] shaving his hair, and likewise [one who becomes impure through contact with them] is not liable to punishment for defiling the Sanctuary [by entering it when impure] or [by eating] the hallowed offerings [in such a state of uncleanness]. Rather, [the expression] in the open field is to be understood according to our Rabbis in its literal sense, i.e., that he touches a person who is slain by the sword, who has fallen in the open field, and there is nothing covering over the corpse. And since this verse is now [seemingly] superfluous, [since it has already been stated in Verse 11 above that one who touches a corpse becomes impure], the Rabbis derived from it the following interpretation, and they said in Tractate Nazir in the Chapter “The High Priest:” “And whosoever toucheth in the open field. This refers to one who ‘covers over’ a corpse” [and tells us that he becomes impure], since by covering over it he “touches” the open field. [According to this interpretation of the Rabbis the expression] bachalal cherev (slain by the sword) is lacking the [connective letter] vav — u’bachalal cherev, [meaning: “or slain by the sword”]., i.e., who leans over a corpse or covers it with his body, because in doing so he “touches” the corpse; 2) or whosoever touches directly one slain by the sword. And since Scripture says ‘pnei’ hasadeh [literally: “the face” of the field] and does not [just] say “the field”, Rabbi Yishmael further interpreted it to exclude the [case of a] foetus which died whilst still in its mother’s womb [so that if the midwife put her hand inside the mother and touched it, she does not become impure], because it is impurity which is “swallowed up,” and is not “upon the face” of the place. Scripture states slain ‘by the sword’ because it speaks of the usual [way of events], but the same law applies if the person was slain by a stone or fist. It mentions those killed and those who die [naturally, stating: one that is slain by the sword, or one that dieth of himself] in contrast to animals for [those animals, which are permitted as food] are pure if they are slaughtered properly, but if they die of their own accord [or were not slaughtered properly] convey impurity as carrion; whereas all human corpses convey impurity, regardless of how the person met his death]. Since it appears superfluous, however, our Rabbis interpreted it in the following manner, namely [that the expression one that is slain by the sword is intended to teach us] that the sword [with which the person was slain] is exactly like the slain person himself, and the whole purpose of the verse is to equate the slain and the sword, so as to say that it [the sword] becomes an avi avoth hatumah (a progenitor of a primary source of impurity), (a progenitor of a primary source of impurity) the sword which touched him should have become only an av hatumah (a primary source of impurity), while the rule is that it becomes an avi avoth hatumah just like the dead itself. Hence a person that touches the sword which was so defiled becomes an av hatumah (a primary source of impurity), and not a rishon l’tumah (a first degree of impurity) as would be the ordinary rule. See further on these laws in Vol. III, p. 148, Note 252. It should also be pointed out [for the sake of the following text of Ramban] that the above principle of the sword [becoming an avi avoth hatumah just as the corpse] applies also to all metal vessels which have been rendered impure by a corpse. just like the dead person himself, and it conveys impurity of seven days’ duration to people and vessels. It appears from the text of the Mishnah and Gemara (see Note 32 above). — For the term Gemara see in Vol. II p. 132, Note 204. that it [the sword and all metal vessels] convey impurity by contact and through carrying just like the corpse, but it is unlike the corpse in [that it does not] convey impurity by ohel [i.e., if it is in a tent or building together with a person or object, that person or object remains pure]. Perhaps the Rabbis based this exclusion on the verse dealing with the tent, which says: when ‘a man’ dieth in a tent, [thus implying that the law of “the tent,” i.e., that of conveying impurity by ohel], applies only to the dead body itself. And if a sword [or metal vessel] which became impure by [touching] a corpse were to convey impurity of ohel, the priests would be forbidden to enter all buildings [even after the removal of the corpse], for they all have a “sword” [i.e., some metal vessel] which has become impure, and it would defile them by ohel [and it is obviously impossible to say that priests may never enter all buildings]! It further appears in the Gemara that a sword [or metal vessel] which touches a corpse does not render a person [who touches it] impure to the extent that he requires to be sprinkled [with the waters of purification] on the third and seventh days, even though the person who touches [the sword or vessel] becomes a “father of impurity.” This is because in the second verse where He states and he shall sprinkle upon the tent it says, and upon him that touched the bone, or ‘the slain,’ or the dead or the grave, but it does not say “or one that is slain with a sword.” If so, the sword [and all metal vessels] are like the corpse [in degree of impurity] only to the extent that one who touches it is rendered impure for seven days’ duration, but not [to the extent that a sword conveys impurity] by ohel [as does a corpse], nor [to the extent that one who touches it] requires sprinkling [of the waters of purification]. Likewise a Nazirite does not have to cut off his hair [on account of being in a tent together with it], nor is there any prohibition at all against a priest touching it [whereas he is prohibited from touching the corpse itself.] This is the most likely and reasonable explanation, based on the words of our Rabbis. But we because of our sins are now impure in the exile, and we do not know of the purity of holiness until the spirit be poured upon us from on High, and G-d will sprinkle clean water upon us and we shall become pure. Amen, and may this be the will [of G-d] speedily in our days.

AND HE SHALL PUT UPON IT RUNNING WATER INTO A VESSEL. The meaning thereof is not that he should first put the ashes [of the Red Heifer] into the vessel and then put the water upon the ashes, for our Rabbis have taught that if one places the ashes in the vessel first and then the water, it invalidates [the water, so that it may not be used as water of purification]. They derived this law from the expression, running water into a vessel, which implies that the running water [alone] should be put into the vessel [i.e., there should be nothing-such as the ashes — intervening between the water and the vessel]. Perhaps they deduced it because He did not say: “And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification into a vessel, and he shall put upon it running water.” But [since Scripture put it in the reverse order: And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification — and running water he shall put thereto in a vessel], the meaning of the verse is as follows: “and he shall put upon the ashes the running water which was [already] in the vessel,” meaning that he should mix the ashes with the water which was in the vessel until the water flows over them.

HE HATH DEFILED THE SANCTUARY OF THE ETERNAL. Scripture mentioned this [punishment of] excision without explanation, that one who is impure may not enter the Sanctuary or Tabernacle. saying, he hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Eternal, (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice. because He had already warned us against defiling the Sanctuary, just as He said, she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary. For since He mentioned [this prohibition] there in dealing with a lesser degree of impurity, namely, that of a woman after childbirth in the days of her purification, which is a natural event for her, it [is self-understood that it] applies equally to all impure persons. He has also mentioned the [requirement of] immersion [in a ritual pool for purposes of purification], saying, but if he wash them not [i.e., the garments which have become unclean], nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity,, 17:16. that is to say, he will bear his iniquity if he transgresses [the law and does] that which he is admonished not to do [i.e., if he eats holy food or enters the Sanctuary whilst he is still impure, or when he is wearing impure garments]. Therefore He stated here in respect of the impurity [conveyed] by a corpse that whosoever touches the dead (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice. and purifieth not himself [with the waters of purification], even though he washes his clothes and bathes himself in water, is [nonetheless] considered one who defiles the Tabernacle, just as if he had not immersed himself [in a ritual pool] at all. Thus it was only necessary to mention that the purification [by means of sprinkling the waters of purification] prevents him from becoming pure [if he did not sprinkle them upon himself, even if he washed his clothes and bathed himself in water], this being the meaning of the expression, his impurity is yet upon him, (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice. that is to say, even though he has immersed himself [in a ritual pool] like all other impure people, he still remains impure, because the water of sprinkling hath not been sprinkled upon him. (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice. It is possible that the verse is referring to the man [mentioned above, who had become defiled by the corpse], and the meaning thereof is as follows: “whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself — ‘he who’ hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Eternal shall be cut off from Israel.” There are similar cases where the letter shin or the word asher [defining the nature of a relationship such as: who, which, that, etc.] is missing, [as in the following verses]: l’chol yavo g’vurathecha [which is to be understood as: l’chol — asher — yavo g’vurathecha — Thy might to every one ‘that’ is to come]; v’chol yesh lo (and all he had) he put into his hand [which is to be understood as: v’chol — asher — yesh lo — and all ‘that’ he had he put into his hand]; eth haderech yeilchu bah [which is understood as: eth haderech — asher — yeilchu bah — the way ‘in which’ they must walk]. There are many such verses. And the meaning of the expression ‘ki’ he hath defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal is “‘when’ he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal,” [this usage of the word ki being similar to that found in the verse]: ‘ki’ a bird’s nest chance to be before thee [which means: “‘when’ a bird’s nest chance to be before thee”], and [it is like] its many companion-verses. Now Scripture mentions here [the punishment of] excision twice [once in Verse 13 in connection with defiling the Tabernacle, and again in Verse 20 in connection with the Sanctuary]. In the opinion of our Rabbis this is in order to declare him liable for defiling the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting, and also for the Sanctuary, i.e., the Permanent House [the Temple in Jerusalem]. According to the plain meaning [of Scripture] it may be that eth mikdash Hashem [usually translated: the Sanctuary of the Eternal] refers to the holy offerings. For He had already declared that he that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto the Eternal, having his impurity upon him, is liable to excision; therefore He now declared furthermore that [in the case of impurity conveyed through a corpse] even if [the impure person] immerses himself [in a ritual pool] he is still liable [to that punishment], if he does not purify himself on the third and seventh day [with the waters of purification, before he eats of the holy offerings]. The meaning, then, of mikdash Hashem [literally: the “Sanctuary” of the Eternal] will be [as if it said]: kod’shei Hashem (the “holy things” of the Eternal), as in the expression eth mik’dsho mimenu [literally: “the Sanctuary thereof,” which really means: eth kodsho mimenu — “the hallowed part thereof”]. Thus the [punishment of] excision mentioned in [this] section refers to [entering] the Sanctuary [whilst impure, as stated above in Verse 13], and [eating] its hallowed offerings [in such a state, as mentioned in this verse here]. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that [implied] by the literal meaning [of Scripture], namely that the first [mention of] excision [in Verse 13] refers to one who [actually] touches the corpse, as He said, Whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and the second [mention thereof, i.e., in Verse 20 here] applies to those who were rendered impure by ohel but did not [actually] touch the bone or the grave; for the meaning of [the expression] but the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself is: “but the man that shall be unclean by any of these means [mentioned in Verses 14-16] and shall not purify himself, [that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly].” By way of the Truth [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], it is possible that the expression mikdash Hashem is alluding to the Sanctuary of the Sanctuary.