הניחא למ"ד הזאה צריכה שיעור אלא למ"ד הזאה אין צריכה שיעור מאי איכא למימר אפילו למ"ד הזאה אין צריכא שיעור הני מילי אגבא דגברא אבל במנא צריכה שיעור דתנן כמה יהא בהן ויהא כדי הזאה כדי שיטבול
- 'Sprinkleth' here means 'toucheth'. - But the text reads 'sprinkleth' and also mentions 'toucheth';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 21.');"><sup>21</sup></span> furthermore, he who 'sprinkleth' must wash his clothes, whereas he who 'toucheth' need not wash his clothes? - Rather 'sprinkleth' here means carrieth' - Then let the Divine Law write 'carrieth', why is 'sprinkleth' written? - That [is meant] to let us know that there must be a quantity sufficient for the sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For rendering the one who carries the water unclean; that is indicated by expressing 'carrying' in terms of 'sprinkling'.');"><sup>22</sup></span> That will be right according to him who holds that a definite minimum is necessary in the sprinkling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Nid. 9a.');"><sup>23</sup></span> but according to him who holds there is no required minimum in the sprinkling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Nid. 9a.');"><sup>23</sup></span> what is there to be said? Even according to him who holds there is no required minimum [it will be right], for that refers only to the back of the man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' However small the quantity of the water that reaches him from the hyssop bundle, the cleansing is achieved.');"><sup>24</sup></span> but in the vessels there must be a definite quantity, as we have learnt: How much water is necessary to be sufficient for the sprinkling? Enough for dipping
Shenei Luchot HaBerit
Once we follow this approach the verses in Deuteronomy which appeared strange, begin to make sense. Moses first said: "See I have given you חקים and משפטים, i.e. statutes devoid of rationale as well as laws that commend themselves to your reason." Immediately afterwards The Torah quotes the Gentiles as basing their assessment of the Jewish people as a wise and intelligent people on the fact that we perform all these commandments faithfully (compare Deut. 4,5/6). Their argument is that surely just as there are good reasons for the משפטים which have been revealed, there must be equally good reasons for the חקים which He has not seen fit to reveal. These חקים emanate in the domain רשימו. The meaning of the word רק in the verse רק עם חכם ונבון הגוי הגדול הזה, "this nation is a great and intelligent people," then is ריק, empty, i.e. "these commandments cannot be empty, devoid of intellectual content." As long as the people of Israel hold on to Torah and perform its commandments it is complimented by the nations of the world. This is what the Midrash alluded to when it said cryptically, פרה=ישראל, אדומה=ישראל, תמימה=ישראל, אשר לא עלה עליה עול=ישראל. This means that Israel is superior to the nations of the world in four respects, hence the grudging respect of Satan and the rest of the world. If we fail to demonstrate our superiority by heeding those four areas from which Torah values are transmitted to us, we would – G–d forbid! – become victims of the four kingdoms that rule over us in the four exiles. The degree of mystery surrounding these four examples of Torah legislation that Satan and the nations had quoted, varies. The red heifer legislation is the most mystifying, since its true reason is available only to those who have access to the domain of רשימו. The scapegoat on the Day of Atonement is a little less mystifying, as explained in the Zohar, in its commentary on the words איש עתי, Leviticus 16,21. The true reason for that legislation is reserved for those who have access to the domain of חקיקה. The domain חציבה holds the mystery of the levirate marriage legislation, whereas the domain of עשיה contains the answer to the mystery of the כלאים legislation. We have shown why this Parshah in pointing to the mystical domain of רשימו is really the root of all Torah legislation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
