Why does the Torah refer to the Mitzvah of Parah Adumah as "Chukah"?
Rashi (citing Yoma, 67b): The Satan and the nations of the world ask 'What sort of Mitzvah is this? What is the reason for it?' Therefore Hashem calls it a Chukah - a statute, as if to say 'It is My decree, and you do not have the authority to query it!'
Menachos, 27a: To teach us that the three sprinklings listed in Pasuk 6) and the seven Haza'os are crucial, 1 (and that, if Elazar sprinkles the blood she'Lo li'Shemo or not facing the entrance to the Heichal, it is Pasul - Rashi, in Menachos, 27b). 2
Sifri: To learn via a Gezeirah Shavah from "ve'Haysah Zos lachem le'Chukas Olam" (Acharei Mos, Vayikra, 16:29) in connection with the Avodah on Yom Kipur, that the Avodah of the Parah Aduamah requires the four white Bigdei Kohen. 3
Why do the Satan and the nations of the world query Parah Adumah more than the Korban of a Zav or of a Yoledes, which also come to atone?
Ramban: Because, apart from the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, it is the only Korban to be brought outside the Mishkan.
Seforno (citing Yoma, 67b): Because at one and the same time, it is Metaher those who are Tamei, and Metamei those who are Tahor. 1 See Seforno, who elaborates.
R. Sa'adya Ga'on: Because it is incomprehensible that its ashes are Metamei - bearing in mind that any other Tum'ah, once it turns into ashes, becomes Tahor. 2
Riva (21, citing Rav Sa'adya Gaon), R. Chaim Paltiel (on Pasuk 1) queries this, inasmuch as this phenomenon exists in the world at large, where fire hardens Cheilev but melts tin; water moistens cedar but dries fig-wood. There are foods that satiate the hungry and make the satiated hungry. There are drugs that cure the sick and make the healthy sick. Refer also to 19:22:3:3.
Why does the Torah call it "Chukas ha'Torah", and not Chukas ha'Parah?
Rashbam: It is the statute of Tum'as Meis (on Pasuk 14) - "Zos ha'Torah Adam ki Yamus be'Ohel".
Or ha'Chayim and Oznayim la'Torah: Because the Dini of Parah Adumah are due to the fact that Yisrael received the Torah at Har Sinai (which sanctified them; and Tum'as Meis is the result of the spirits who therefore crave to cling to the body of a Yisrael 1 even after death, but not to a Nochri 2 - Or ha'Chayim).
Yoma, 42b: To teach us that the following Avodos may only be performed by day 3 - Shechitah, Kabalas and Haza?as ha?Dam, 4 Sereifah and throwing into it the cedar branch, the hyssop-twig and the crimson, woolen thread.
Oznayim la'Torah: At Marah, Hashem gave them one of each of the three categories of Mitzvah - 'Muskalos' (self-understood) ... Dinim; 'Mekubalos' (logical but which are not automatically understood) ... Shabbos and Kibud Av va'Ein 5 and ; 'Chukim' (which defy logic) ... Parah Adumah, which is most profound the 'Chok of the Torah' - the most profound Chok of all, in that it contains contradictions (Metaher es ha'Teme'im and Metamei es ha'Tehorim),
Or ha'Chayim: And this also explains why, in connection with the Korban Pesach in Parshas Bo, the Torah mentions the prohibition of an Areil and of a Ben Neichar, but not of Tum'ah - because it took place before the Torah was given, in which case Yisrael were not yet subject to Tum'ah any more than Nochrim.
Or ha'Chayim (citing Nazir, 61b): Who is not subject to any form of Tum'as Meis. The Oznayim la'Torah explains that that is why a Nochri is not subject to Tum'as Ohel. It is not clear however, why he is subject to Tum'as Meis at all.
See Torah Temimah, note 4.
See Torah Temimah, note 3.
See Oznayim la'Torah for full explanation.
What is "Zos" coming to preclude?
Why does the Torah use the (otherwise superfluous) words ?asher Tzivah Hashem??
Yoma, 2a: To teach us, via a Gezeirah Shavah from Parah Adumah, in Tzav Vayikra, 8:34 ?asher Tzivah Hashem La?asos? that the Kohen Gadol must separate from his wife seven days before Yom Kipur. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 5, who elaborates.
"What are the implications of "ve'Yikchu Eilecha"?
Rashi #1: It implies that the current Parah Adumah will always be named after Moshe - They will call it 'the Parah that Moshe prepared in the desert'. 1
Rashi #2 (in Pasuk 22, citing R?Moshe ha?Darshan), TargumYonasan and Sifri: "Ve'yikchu" implies that Yisrael should purchase it with their money 2 (which was taken from the T'rumas ha'Lishkah), 3 and "Eilecha", that Moshe should be the Gizbar (the financial supervisor) - Sifri.
Moshav Zekenim and P'nei David 11, citing R. Efrayim (Al Derech D'rush): The Parshah alludes to Torah, which is called 'Lekach'. One who engages in Torah, it is called on his name. Parah is Torah, since it is P'rei ve'Revei (increases). One who reddens his face 4 for Torah, he retains it. Torah is Temimah, without any Mum (crookedness). Only one who engages in Torah is truly free (without a yoke). Elazar ? one merits the crown of Torah only if Keil Ozer (Hashem helps) him... (They elaborate at length).
Even though it was Elazar who 'brought' it - but since only Moshe knew the Kavanah behind it, it is considered as if he brought it. See Oznayim la'Torah, DH 've'Yikchu Eilecha' #2..
Rashi (on Pasuk 22, citing R. Moshe ha'Darshan): Since they removed their golden nose-rings to make the Golden Calf, they must pay for the Parah Adumah, which atones for it (See Ba'al ha'Turim).
Which comprised money of the half-Shekalim that Yisrael donated annually. See beginning of Ki Sisa. See Torah Temimah, note 6.
Perhaps this means that he gets excited about it. Pesikta Rabsi (Nasa 5) says that Moshe's face reddened when Hashem spoke to him. Alternatively, he bears shame for the sake of Torah (he asks all his doubts, and his colleagues ridicule him ? Brachos 63b and Rashi there, based on Mishlei 30:32). (PF)
What is the definition of ?Parah??
What is the significance of the fact that the Parah Adumah must be red?
Rashi (in Pasuk 22, quoting R. Moshe ha?Darshan): Because red symbolizes sin. Refer to 19:2:4:2*, 1 and the Parah came to atone for the sin of the Eigel ha'Zahav. 2
Moshav Zekenim: Parah Adumah is to atone for the Eigel ha'Zahav, which was made of gold, which is of a reddish color.
Moshav Zekenim and P?nei David 11: Refer to 19:2:4:3 and note.
How did the Parah Adumah atone for the sin of the Eigel? What function did it serve?
Rashbam: It purified anyone who became Tamei Meis ? whether by touching, carrying or Ohel ha?Meis.
Since the Torah writes "Asher Ein bah Mum", why does it insert the word "Temimah"?
Rashi #1: "Temimah" describes, not the cow, 1 but the redness ? to teach us that if it has two black hairs, it is Pasul. 2
Rashi #2 (in Pasuk 22, quoting R. Moshe ha?Darshan): Because before the sin of the Eigel they were perfect, and now they had become blemished 'Let the Parah come and atone for them, and they will return to their state of perfection'.
What is the word "asher Ein bah Mum" coming to preclude?
Sotah, 46a: It precludes the Eglah Arufah from becoming Pasul via a blemish. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 9.
What are the connotations of "Lo Alah alehah Ol"?
What is the significance of the fact that the cow never bore a yoke on its back?
Rashi #2 (on Pasuk 22, citing R. Moshe ha'Darshan): To atone for the fact that they removed from themselves the yoke of Heaven.
Why is "Ol" written without a 'Vav'?
Ba'al ha'Turim: To teach us that the cow is Pasul even if one merely placed the yoke on it, without the cow actually drawing it.
Seeing as all kinds of work invalidtate the Parah Adumah, why does the Torah mention specifically a yoke?
All other Korbanos can be male or female. Why must Parah Adumah be a female?
Moshav Zekenim (based on Rashi on Pasuk 22): Since Parah Adumah atones for the Chet ha'Eigel, it is fitting that the mother comes and atones for her son. 1
Some Korbanos are only males - Olah, Asham, B'chor and Pesach, but we do not find any Korban that is only female. (Chatas Yachid must be female, but other Chata'os are males. ? PF)
Why does the Torah write "Asher Ein bah Mum"? We already know that a blemish disqualifies since it is called a Chatas?
Moshav Zekenim #1: Sometimes the Torah writes what we could have learned from a Kal va'Chomer. 1
Moshav Zekenim #2: One might have thought that just like Esnan (a harlot's wage), i.e. Ervah, does not disqualify it, since it is not offered in the Mikdash, also a blemish does not disqualify, since they are compared ? "Mashchasam bahem Mum bam" (Vayikra 22:25). 2
Moshav Zekenim #3: The Torah writes "bah Mum" to extrapolte that a blemish does not disqualify the Eglah Arufah. One might have thought that it does, since Kaparah is written by it like by Kodshim. (The Halachah is, it disqualifies only Parah, which is called Chatas.)
This is not a Kal va'Chomer! Perhaps he means that also here, the Torah wrote it, even though it was not needed. Alternatively, this answer belongs on Moshav Zekenim's question below from a Kal va'Chomer (refer to 19:2:155. - PF)
Moshav Zekenim: Why do we say in Avodah Zarah (23b) that since a blemish disqualifies it, so does Ervah, since Esnan proves that Ervah does not disqualify it?
Why does the Torah need to write "Asher Ein bah Mum"? Why can we not learn it from a Kal va'Chomer - Work does not disqualify Korbanos, but a blemish does. Consequently, since work disqualifies the Parah, how much more so a blemish?
Refer to 19:2:154:1.
Moshav Zekenim: We cannot learn it from a Kal va'Chomer since Korbanos must be offered by Kohanim who are Tahor, whereas a T'vul Yom is Kosher for Parah.
Moshav Zekenim #3: The Torah writes "Bah Mum", implying that a blemish does not disqualify the Eglah Arufah. One might have thought that it does, since Kaparah is written by it like by Kodshim.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "Temimah" teaches that two black hairs disqualify the Parah. This is a tradition from Sinai and the Pasuk is not needed for this?
R. Chaim Paltiel #1: The tradition teaches us that two black hairs disqualify the Parah. "Temimah" teaches that they disqualify only if they are in one place.
R. Chaim Paltiel #2: "Temimah" would disqualify due to two black hairs, even if they were scattered. The tradition teaches they disqualify only if they are in one place.
Mizrachi: The tradition teaches the number of hairs that disqualify. All Shi'urim are a tradition from Sinai, even if Pesukim teach the Halachah itself.
Rashi writes (in Sh'mos 15:25) that they were commanded about Parah Adumah at Marah. What is the source for this? Sanhedrin 56b lists ten Mitzvos that they were commanded there, and Parah Adumah is not among them!
Refer to Sh'mos 15:25:152:1-3 and the notes there.
