Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 04:19:05 +0000 Reply-To: ml@virtual.co.il Sender: owner-yhe-parsha.ml@virtual.co.il Precedence: bulk From: "Menachem Leibtag" To: yhe-parsha.ml@virtual.co.il Subject: PARSHAT CHUKAT *************************************************************** THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/tanach] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag *************************************************************** PARSHAT CHUKAT At Mei Meriva, why is Moshe punished so severely? Is it simply because he: * spoke HARSHLY, instead of GENTLY; * HIT the rock, instead of SPEAKING to it; * hit the rock TWICE, instead of only ONCE? These are only a few of the numerous opinions raised by the commentators. In this week's shiur, we first analyze the parsha to show WHY there are so many opinions. Afterward, we discuss the possibility that Moshe may not have sinned at all! INTRODUCTION In the Torah's account of the Mei Meriva incident, even though we are told WHY Moshe is punished: "...because you did not trust Me enough to sanctify Me in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael..." (see 20:12), we are never told precisely WHAT it was that he did wrong. The "rishonim" (the classic commentaries) offer four different explanations: 1) RASHI (following the Midrash)- Because Moshe HIT the rock, instead of speaking to it; 2) IBN EZRA - Because he hit the rock TWICE, instead of once; 3) RAMBAM - Because Moshe 'lost his temper' and spoke harshly; 4) RAMBAN / in the name of Rabeinu Chananel - Because Moshe said: "can WE get water from this rock?", instead of: "can GOD get water from this rock?". [See Ramban 20:1, where he discusses all four.] Even though each "shita" (opinion) is different, they are all based on the assumption Moshe is punished because he did not properly fulfill God's instructions concerning how to bring forth water from the rock. The reason why there are so many different opinions is quite simple. Because we know that Moshe did SOMETHING wrong, each commentator must scrutinize the psukim which describe Moshe's actions in search of a flaw. So, to uncover that flaw, we need only compare what God COMMANDS to what Moshe DOES. Part One of this week's shiur conducts this analysis in order to reveals the 'textual' reason for this four-way "machloket". In Part Two we will suggest a radically different approach. PART ONE - FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS God's instructions to Moshe at Mei Meriva appear to be very explicit: "And God spoke to Moshe saying: TAKE the staff, and GATHER the congregation together, you and Aharon your brother, and SPEAK to the rock before their eyes that it should give water, and TAKE OUT for them water from the rock, and GIVE DRINK to the people and their animals." (20:7-8) Reread these psukim one more time and carefully note the FIVE commands which Moshe (and Aharon) must execute: (1) TAKE the staff; (2) GATHER the congregation; (3) SPEAK to the rock; (4) TAKE OUT for them water from the rock; (5) GIVE DRINK to the people. Now, to determine Moshe's sin, we must simply examine the psukim which follow (20:9-12) in search for any discrepancy between these commands and Moshe's execution. COMMAND #1 - "TAKE the staff"; MOSHE: "And Moshe TOOK the staff from before the Lord, as God had commanded him..." (20:9) Nothing seems to be wrong here, after all the pasuk says: "as God commanded him". Certainly, this could not be a sin. COMMAND #2 - GATHER the "eydah" (congregation)... MOSHE: "And Moshe and Aharon GATHERED the "kahal" (congregation) people together in front of the rock..." (20:10) Here again, nothing appears to have been done wrong. [There is slight discrepancy between "kahal" and "eydah", but these two words may simply be synonymous. (See Malbim who disagrees).] COMMAND #3 - SPEAK to the rock that it should give water... MOSHE: "...And he [Moshe] said to THEM: Listen here you rebellious people, is it possible that WE can take water from this rock?" (20:10) At first glance, it appears as though here we 'hit the jackpot'! Even though God commands Moshe to speak to the ROCK, Moshe never does so. Based on this discrepancy, RASHI claims that Moshe is punished for later hitting the rock instead of speaking to it. Rambam and Ramban take issue with the rebuke itself, which Moshe seems to be adding on his own initiative. RAMBAM takes issue with its TONE while RAMBAN takes issue with its CONTENT. RAMBAM claims that the tone of Moshe's statement - "listen you rebels..." - reflects an unnecessary anger which caused a "chillul Hashem" (a desecration of God's Name). [See Rambam in "shmoneh prakim", quoted by Ramban in his pirush to 20:7.] RAMBAN claims that by saying 'we' in their rhetorical question - "is it possible that WE can take out water from this rock?" - Moshe caused the people to conclude that it was THEY (and not God) who caused the water to come out from the rock. [See Ramban 20:7 in name of Rabeinu Chananel.] Nonetheless, it is possible to understand that there is nothing at all wrong with this rebuke which Moshe adds. One could suggest that Moshe understands God's command to "speak TO the rock" as "speak ABOUT the rock", i.e. about the possibility that it could "give water" ("v'natan meimav"?). After all, rocks don't have ears, but people do! It would make more sense that God wants Moshe to speak to the people about the rock, rather than to the rock itself. [Later in the shiur we will return to this possibility.] COMMAND #4 - TAKE OUT for them water from the rock... MOSHE: "... and Moshe lifted his hand and HIT the rock with his staff TWO times, then much water came out..." (20:11) RASHI, as we mentioned above, sees this as Moshe's primary transgression for he hit the rock INSTEAD of 'talking' to it. However, based on our explanation above, it is possible that hitting the rock was exactly what God expected Moshe to do. After all, this is exactly how God had instructed him to take water from the 'rock at Chorev' many years earlier (see Shmot 17:6). After all, Moshe is commanded to TAKE OUT water from the rock. Once Moshe understands that 'speak to rock' means 'speak about the rock' then obviously 'take out water' must imply to take a certain action to extract the water - i.e. to hit the rock! Certainly, this would be no less of a miracle now than it was forty years earlier! IBN EZRA, after refuting the other opinions, finds Moshe's flaw in a tiny detail in this pasuk. He focuses on the word "pa'amayim" (=two times), claiming that Moshe transgressed because he hit the rock TWICE instead of only once. [It seems that according to Ibn Ezra, this reason 'wins by default'.] COMMAND #5 - Give drink to the people and their animals. MOSHE: "...and the people and their animals drank. (20:11) Clearly, Moshe does nothing wrong in this final stage. ================= PART II - DID MOSHE DO ANYTHING 'WRONG' ? Up until this point we have simply explained WHY there are so many different opinions, and the 'textual' reason for each. However, from this very analysis, an interesting possibility arises. If we combine the 'positive' side of all four opinions (i.e. why each commentator rejects the fault in Moshe raised by the others), we could conclude that Moshe did nothing wrong at all! [See the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Avrabanel on this sugya. Each of them present very convincing arguments why all of the other opinions are wrong. Later in the shiur, we will even find a logical reason for the extra rebuke which Moshe seems to be adding (see command #3 above).] CRIME & PUNISHMENT To suggest that Moshe & Aharon did nothing wrong is impossible, for at the conclusion of this incident they are punished - surely, God would not punish Moshe & Aharon for no reason. However, in order to better understand the nature of their 'punishment', we must first re-examine this entire parsha in order to determine where to look in order to uncover their 'crime'. WHOSE STAFF IS IT? The key to understanding this complicated parsha lies in its connection to Parshat Korach! To uncover that connection, we must return to the first stage in God's command, where God instructs Moshe to - "kach et ha'mateh" - take THE STAFF (see 20:8). It is commonly assumed that Moshe takes his own staff, i.e. the very same staff which brought the plagues, split the sea, and brought forth water from the rock at Chorev, etc. However, it cannot be Moshe's own staff, for the pasuk states explicitly: "And Moshe took the staff - M'LIFNEI HASHEM - from before God, as God had commanded him..." (20:9) In Chumash, "lifnei Hashem" usually refers to in front of the ARON, i.e. the ark of the covenant located in the holiest domain of the Mishkan (see Shmot 29:11,42;30:8; etc.). Surely, Moshe's staff is not kept "lifnei Hashem"! Is it possible that Moshe would use the Mishkan as his personal closet!] [Note that God commands Moshe -"kach et HA'mateh" - THE staff, not -"matecha" - YOUR staff. Compare with Shmot 14:16, 17:5.] If it is not his own staff that Moshe must take, then what staff is it. What staff is stored in the "kodesh ha'kedoshim"?! The answer, as Rashbam explains (see 20:8), is quite simple - it is AHARON's special staff! Recall from last week's Parsha, that after Korach's rebellion, God commands Moshe to conduct a test between the staffs of each of the tribal leaders (see 17:16-24) to establish that the tribe of Levi is indeed chosen. After Aharon's staff wins that test, God commands Moshe: "... return the STAFF OF AHARON - "lifnei ha'eydut" - [in front of the 'tablets of testimony', i.e. the ARON ] for safe keeping, in order that it be a SIGN FOR ANY REBELLIOUS GROUP ["ot l'bnei meri"]- so that they will stop complaining and not die..." (17:25-26) Now it becomes clear why the Torah (in 20:9) must inform us that Moshe takes the staff "m'lifnei Hashem". Moshe takes the staff of Aharon which is kept "lifnei Hashem", for it was set aside for an - "ot l'bnei meri" - for situations of rebellion such as what takes place at Mei Meriva. This beautifully explains why Moshe adds his rebuke of "shimu na ha'MORIM" [listen o' you rebellious ones (see 20:10)] before hitting the rock. Considering that God instructs Moshe to take the "mateh Aharon" which was set aside for an "ot l'bnei MERI", it is only appropriate that rebuke the people accordingly! ["meri" & "morim" are derived from the same shoresh] In the Torah's use of the word GAVANU in both these parshiot, we find additional textual support for this interpretation. Recall how the complaints at Mei Meriva first began: "And the people quarrelled ["VA'YA'REV"] with Moshe saying: 'loo GAVANU B'GVA acheinu...' - if only we had perished with our brothers - lifnei Hashem." (20:3) This complaint echoes the cry of Bnei Yisrael in the aftermath of Korach's rebellion (immediately after Aharon's staff is set aside/ see 17:25-27): "And Bnei Yisrael said to Moshe: 'heyn GAVANU avadnu' - lo, we perish, we are lost... anyone who comes close to the Mishkan will die, alas we are doomed to perish..." (17:27-28) [Compare also 20:4-5 with 16:13-14.] Now that we have established that Moshe is taking MATEH AHARON, just about everything that he does makes perfect sense. As we explained earlier, because MATEH AHARON is an "ot l'bnei meri", it is only logical that Moshe understands "speak to the rock" as "speak ABOUT the rock". Moshe's next statement, asking the people: "Can we take water from this rock?" is based on this very same understanding. If God instructed Moshe to 'speak about (or at) the rock, then "v'natan meimav" - must imply 'THAT IT SHOULD give water'. In other words, God instructs Moshe is to challenge the people, to ask them - is it possible for a rock to give water, and that's exactly what he does! We can also understand why Moshe HITS the rock. Once he understands that "speak TO the rock" means "speak ABOUT the rock", then God's next instruction: "v'hotzeita" [you shall TAKE OUT water] must imply that Moshe himself must cause the water to come out. How? Exactly as he did forty years earlier by the rock in Chorev, using his own mateh (not Aharon's / read 20:11 carefully - "matey'hu"). The only detail which remains to be explained is why Moshe hit the rock twice (see Ibn Ezra's shita). However, as Ramban asks, could it be that hitting the rock twice instead of once makes the miracle any less impressive? Furthermore, God did not tell Moshe to hit the rock ONCE or TWICE! He just commanded him to 'take out water'. Certainly, Moshe should have the leeway to hit the rock as many times as he feels necessary. [Even at Chorev, it never mentions how many times Moshe hit the rock.] Finally, even if this action was incorrect, could this slight 'transgression' warrant such a severe punishment? Why then is Moshe punished. Where in Moshe's behavior do we find a lack of sanctification of God's name? Furthermore, what did Aharon do wrong? Why is he punished? PUNISHMENT OR DEMOTION Before we can explain WHY Moshe and Aharon are punished, we must first re-examine precisely WHAT their punishment is. It is commonly understood that Moshe and Aharon's punishment is that they are forbidden from entering the Eretz Canaan. However, once again, this popular assumption is incorrect (or at least not precise). Let's take a look once again how the Chumash explains their punishment: "And God told Moshe... because you did not trust Me enough to sanctify Me... therefore you shall NOT LEAD THIS NATION into the LAND which I promised them... " (20:12) This punishment implies that Moshe & Aharon have failed as leaders. God informs them that because of their behavior, they will not be able to LEAD Bnei Yisrael into the Promised Land. They are not being punished as INDIVIDUALS, rather as NATIONAL LEADERS. Therefore, to determine WHAT they did wrong we must re-examine this entire event; not to find a technical flaw in their execution of God's command, but to find a more significant flaw in the character of their leadership - to find a reason for their demotion. The pasuk which explains their punishment already hints to this flaw in leadership: "...BECAUSE you did not trust Me enough TO SANCTIFY ME in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael... (20:12) This implies that God expected Moshe and Aharon to take the perilous situation at Mei Meriva, a rebellion against God, and somehow create from it a "kiddush Hashem" - a sanctification of God's Name. However, they were unable to do so. Failure in leadership is not necessarily because the leader does something wrong. Leadership, as its name implies, must LEAD the people - i.e. it must do something right, it must take an initiative. At Mei Meriva, Moshe & Aharon fail as leaders. So, what should have they done? What did God expect for Moshe & Aharon to do? To answer this question, we must take a closer look at the OPENING events at Mei Meriva: "And there was not water for the people, and they gathered against Moshe and Aharon. They argued with Moshe saying: It would had been better had we died with our brethren "lifnei Hashem"... Why did you bring us to this desert to die?... Why did you take us out of Egypt to bring us to this terrible place?... there are no fruits here and there is no water to drink." (20:3-5) Moshe and Aharon's immediate reaction to the people's complaints appears to be rather pathetic: "And Moshe and Aharon came to the Ohel Moed [in fear] from the congregation, and they fell on their faces..." (20:6) Precisely in situations such as these leadership must take a stand. For example, forty years earlier at Rfidim a similar incident took place with almost the identical complaint (see Shmot 17:1-7). In that confrontation, Moshe immediately answers the people, explaining to them that their complaint against him reflects their lack of faith in God: "mah trivun iy'madi, mah t'nasun et Hashem" (17:2) [Why are you arguing with me, why are you TESTING God?] There, when the people continue to complain, Moshe cries out to God, begging for a solution (see 17:4). In contrast, at "Mei Meriva", instead of confronting these almost identical complaints, Moshe & Aharon immediately 'run away' to the Ohel Moed and 'fall on their faces' (20:6). Was this the proper reaction? Should they not have assured the people that God will indeed take care of their needs. Should they not have challenged the blasphemous statement that it "would have been better had they remained in Egypt"? Could one not suggest that already at this point in the narrative Moshe & Aharon have failed as national leaders, for they do not sanctify God's name when the opportunity arose. This interpretation can explain use of the word "EMUNAH" in the pasuk which explains the reason for their punishment: "ya'an lo he'EMANTEM BI" - because you did not have FAITH IN ME in the EYES of Bnei Yisrael" (see 20:12). "EMUNAH" in this pasuk does not refer to belief in God in the theological sense. Surely, Moshe and Aharon believe in God. However, they are not 'supportive' enough of God in the eyes of the people. The Hebrew word "emunah" stems from the shoresh aleph.mem.nun which means to support or sustain. [For example, in Shmot 17:12 - "v'haya yadav emunah..." in the war against Amalek, when Aharon & Chur support Moshe's arm, or in Megilat Esther (2:7) -"va'yehi OMEYN et Hadassah..." - i.e. Mordechei supported (or adopted) Esther, or "omnot ha'bayit" the pillars supporting the Beit Ha'Mikdash (II Melachim 18:16), or the word "amen", which confirms or supports a bracha or statement made by others, etc.] . Even though God immediately gives Moshe & Aharon specific instructions on how to deal with the situation, it is already too late. As soon is the incident is over, even though Moshe & Aharon may have properly fulfilled all of God's instructions when hitting the rock, God informs them that their days as the nation's leaders are numbered. Before Bnei Yisrael will begin their conquest of Eretz Canaan, it will be necessary to appoint new leadership. Once again, the reason for this 'punishment' is quite logical. Considering the many difficulties which will face Bnei Yisrael when they begin conquest of the Land, it is only inevitable that many more rebellious situations such as these will arise. Leadership, which can deal with such complaints, is essential. STRIKE THREE Had this been the only incident where Moshe & Aharon's leadership faltered, surely their punishment would not have been so harsh. Most likely, God would have given them a 'second chance'. However, this problem of leadership had already surfaced numerous times in Sefer Bamidbar. In fact it could almost be considered its secondary theme. Note, that from the time Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai, almost every event which Chumash records reflects this pattern of faltering leadership: * At "kivrot ha'taaveh" Moshe himself claims that he can longer lead the people (11:11-15). * Later, even Miriam, Moshe's own sister, complains about his leadership (12:1-3). * When the "mraglim" return, Moshe and Aharon fall on their faces (14:5); Kalev and Yehoshua take leadership positions. * In the rebellion of Korach (chapter 16), again Moshe and Aharon's leadership is challenged, again they fall on their faces (16:4,22). [This approach also explains why later in Sefer Dvarim, Moshe claims that it was because of "Chet Ha'Mraglim" that he could not enter the land (Dvarim 1:37).] As we have explained, surely as individuals, Moshe and Aharon are tzadikim, they do nothing 'wrong'. However, as leaders, they fail. Leadership must provide not only solutions but also guidance. At Mei Meriva, possibly a personal example of patience, stamina, confidence, and calm rebuke may have able to create the necessary "kiddush Hashem"; but this did not happen. Must (or should) Moshe Rabeinu's behavior in this entire incident be considered sinful? Not necessarily! This leadership crisis does not have to be considered a question of good or bad behavior. Rather, it could be considered a problem of compatibility. In the fortieth year, not only is there a generation gap, there was also a gap in spiritual level. The events of "Mei Meriva" exhibit a recurring theme in Sefer Bamidbar - the lack of compatibility between Moshe Rabeinu and Bnei Yisrael. After all, Moshe had spent months on Har Sinai with the SHCHINA. There were even times when it was necessary for him to put on a mask before speaking to Bnei Yisrael (see Shmot 34:35). To meet the challenges of taking this nation into the Promised Land, new leadership was essential. Not necessarily because Moshe and Aharon did anything 'wrong', rather because Am Yisrael were not worthy of their leadership. shabbat shalom, menachem ======================= FOR FURTHER IYUN A. One could even go one step further and suggest that Moshe, even before God's command, should have taken MATEH AHARON and shown it to the people and rebuked them. If so, then God's first command to Moshe - "kach et ha'mateh" may simply be a reminder to Moshe of what he SHOULD HAVE DONE on his own (as he was instructed in Parshat Korach)! This could explain "ka'asher tzivahu" in 20:9. It may imply: as God commanded him - not just now, but earlier - in PARSHAT KORACH!] B. Later in the Parsha, a similar situation where the people need water, arises at "B'ey'rah" (21:16-18). There Moshe gathers the people together, God provides water, and the people respond with a song of praise! This shows that given the proper circumstances, such a situation can result in a "kiddush Hashem". Moshe may have learned his lesson, however, by then it is already too late for God to change His decision.] C. REASONS OR INDICATORS Our interpretation in the shiur (part two) does not necessarily have to conflict with the various opinions raised by the "rishonim" which we discussed in Part One. One could suggest that each of those reasons can be understood as INDICATORS of this faltering leadership, not just REASONS for Moshe's punishment. For example, Moshe and Aharon's use of a harsh tone; their quick anger; their lack of patience hitting the rock twice instead of once; their running away to the Ohel Moed, etc. All of these opinions point to the same general problem of leadership. D. According to our explanation above, the most difficult pasuk to explain is 20:24, in relation to Aharon's death at Hor haHar: "... al asher m'ritem et pi, lmei m'riva" "meri" implies more than not doing something right, it seems as though something of a rebellious nature was done. 1. Explain why this pasuk led many mphorshim to explain the sin as hitting the rock instead of speaking to it. 2. How else can one explain this pasuk? 3. Explain the "lamed" in "l'mei mriva". 4. Read Dvarim 32:51. What does "m'altem" mean? ( What is "me'ilah", in general)? Relate this pasuk to Bamidbar 20:24 and 20:12-13, and use it to explain your answer to 1 & 2 above. ================================================================= E. AN EXTRA SHIUR on - CHUKAT HA'TORAH - / a repeat from the shiur on Parshat Tzav INTRODUCTION Parshat PARAH (Bamidbar 19:1-22/ the opening parsha of Parshat Chukat) opens with a unique phrase: "zot CHUKAT ha'TORAH" The word TORAH in this phrase is often understood as the entire Chumash, while this law is called a "CHUKAH" because it appears not to make any sense. Based on our explanation of the word TORAH as a procedure, we can suggest an alternate interpretation. In doing so, we will also suggest a more precise explanation for the word "chukah". TWO PROCEDURES We explained above that the word TORAH implies a certain procedure. In Parshat Parah we actually find TWO procedures: 1) Making the ashes from the red heifer; 2) Cleansing a defiled person [with the "mei chatat" - water mixed with these ashes]. Procedure (1) is described in psukim 19:2-9: a) take a red heifer (one without a blemish); b) Elazar (the second the high priest) must slaughter it outside the camp; c) its blood should be sprinkled facing the Ohel Moed; d) the heifer must be burned to ashes together with branches from both a hyssop and cedar tree, etc. e) the ashes are collected and stored outside the camp. This procedure, which certainly qualifies to be defined as a "torah", is also accompanied by certain "chukim" - statues. a) the kohen who performs this procedure becomes "tamey"; b) the kohen who burns the animal becomes "tamey"; c) the person who collects the ashes becomes "tamey". These laws are not an integral part of the procedure, however, they are a consequence. Chumash refers to laws such as these as "chukim" for they are permanent, i.e they apply for all times. WHAT'S A CHOK? The word "chok" can be used to describe anything standard or of a permanent statue. For example, when Yosef buys the land from the Egyptian during the famine, he does not touch the land of the priests for it is the "chok" in Egypt that priest receive their land in lieu of their service (see Breishit 37:22). Yirmiyahu refers to the laws of astronomy, the regular and permanent cycles of the sun and moon around the earth as "CHUKOT shamayim v'aretz" (see Yirmiyahu 33:25). For a similar reason, Chumash considers the yearly celebration of Pesach and chag ha'matzot as a "chok" (see Shmot 12:14). [See also in Parshat Emor - Vayikra 23:14,21,41, etc.] A "chok" is simply a statue - a standing law or the consequence of a certain event. For example, in regard to "tumah". If a person touches a dead body, he becomes "tamey" for seven days. This is a "chok", not a "torah", for it is the consequence of what happens if a dead body is touched (see Bamidbar 19:11). [Note: Based on this definition, a "chok" can sometimes be a law which does makes sense. Therefore we find some "chukim" which are quite logical while others are not.] PROCEDURE (2) Now we can explain the second procedure found in Parshat Parah - the sprinkling of the "mei chatat" on a person or object which became "tamey" (19:17-19): a) taking the ashes and putting them in water; b) dipping an "eyzov" branch in the water and sprinkling this water on either the person or object which is "tamey". c) repeating this procedure on the third and seventh day. This procedure is also accompanied by special "chukim" which are a consequence: a) he who sprinkles the water becomes "tamey"; b) one who touches this water also becomes "tamey". Based on this definition, Chumash should refer to this procedure as a TORAH. However, if we look at 19:14, it appears that exactly the opposite is true: "And this is the TORAH - a person who dies in a tent, everything in the tent becomes tamey..." (19:14) Based on our definition, this should be a "chok" and not a "torah"! The answer is quite simple. The phrase "ZOT HA'TORAH" in 19:14 is actually introducing the procedure defined in 19:17-19. The pasuk should be translated as follows: "This is the TORAH - FOR: a) the case of person who dies in a tent, everything in the tent becomes "tamey" (19:14) b) any open vessel in that tent (19:15) c) anyone who touched a dead body in the field or bone or grave (who also becomes "tamey" (19:16) then they must take for any of these "tamey" persons or objects the special water and sprinkle it...- the PROCEDURE (19:17-19) Based on this explanation, we can suggest an explanation for the phrase CHUKAT ha'TORAH used in the opening pasuk of Parshat Parah. It is the special CHOK which relates to the TORAH (procedures) of "tahara" from "tumat meyt", i.e. the making of the ashes (1) and sprinkling the "mei chatat" (2). Each of these two procedures have special "chukim" which accompany these procedures: The special chukim all have one common denominator. The person who is performing the procedure which makes the "tamey" become "tahor", he himself become "tamey"! Chumash refers to this interesting law as "chukat ha'torah". ************************************************************* To subscribe to this shiur send the following email: TO: listproc@virtual.co.il SUBJECT: [leave blank or type the word 'subscribe'] TEXT: subscribe tsc-all OR if you have internet access go to the following URL: http://www.virtual.co.il/city_services/lists/tsc-all/ *************************************************************