Notes on the Red Heifer

Notes on the Red Heifer

Albert Gomez

HEIFER

OT:6510

parah (paw-raw'); feminine of OT:6499; a heifer:
KJV - cow, heifer, kine.

HEIFER. See Animal Kingdom: Ox, and also the article Sacrifices.

Figurative. As the heifer, or young cow, was not used for plowing, but only for treading out the grain, when it ran without any headstall, the expression a "stubborn heifer" (Hos 4:16) is used for resisting authority. To "plow" with another man's heifer (Judges 14:18) is to take an unfair advantage of another. A heifer that "loves to thresh" (Hos 10:11) is figurative of one choosing pleasant, productive, and profitable labor, because in threshing the animal was allowed to eat at pleasure (Deut 25:4). "A pretty heifer" is figurative of the beauty and wealth of Egypt (Jer 46:20); to "skip about like a threshing heifer," of the luxurious Chaldeans (50:11).

HEIFER

(hef'-er) (parah, in Num 19 (see following article) and Hos 4:16; `eghlah, elsewhere in the Old Testament; damalis, in Heb 9:13): For the "heifer of three years old" in the King James Version, the Revised Version margin of Isa 15:5; Jer 48:34, see EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH. A young cow (contrast BULLOCK). The `eghlah figures specifically in religious rites only in the ceremony of Deut 21:1-9 for the cleansing of the land, where an unexpiated murder had been committed. This was not a sacrificial rite-the priests are witnesses only, and the animal was slain by breaking the neck-but sacrificial purity was required for the heifer. Indeed, it is commonly supposed that the rite as it now stands is a rededication of one that formerly had been sacrificial. In the sacrifices proper the heifer could be used for a peace offering (Lev 3:1), but was forbidden for the burnt (Lev 1:3) or sin (4:3,14) offerings. Hence, the sacrifice of 1 Sam 16:2 was a peace offering. In Gen 15:9 the ceremony of the ratification of the covenant by God makes use of a heifer and a she-goat, but the reason for the use of the females is altogether obscure. Compare following article.

Figuratively: The heifer appears as representing sleekness combined with helplessness in Jer 46:20 (compare the comparison of the soldiers to 'stalled calves' in the next verse). In Jer 50:11; Hos 10:11, the heifer is pictured as engaged in threshing. This was particularly light work, coupled with unusually abundant food (Deut 25:4), so that the threshing heifer served especially well for a picture of contentment. ("Wanton" in Jer 50:11, however, is an unfortunate translation in the Revised Version (British and American).) Hosea, in contrast, predicts that the "heifers" shall be set to the hard work of plowing and breaking the sods. In Judg 14:18, Samson uses "heifer" in his riddle to refer to his wife. This, however, was not meant to convey the impression of licentiousness that it gives the modern reader.

BURTON SCOTT EASTON

HEIFER

'eglah, parah. Used, not for plowing, but for the easier work of treading out grain. Cattle were not yoked together but trod it singly, or drew a threshing sledge over it, and were free to eat of it, being unmuzzled (Deut 25:4). An image of Israel's freedom and prosperity; but, saith God, "I passed over upon her fair neck," i.e. I will put the Assyrian yoke upon it (Hos 10:11); in Hos 4:16 translated " Israel is refractory (tossing off the yoke) as a refractory heifer." She had represented God under the calf form (1 Kings 12:28), but it is herself who is one, refractory and untamed (Amos 4:1). "Ye kine (cows, feminine, marking effeminacy) of Bashan," richly fed, effeminate, nobles of Israel; compare Amos 3:9-10,12,15. Jeremiah (Jer 46:20) says "Egypt is like a very fair heifer" appropriately, as Apis was worshipped there under the form of a fair bull with certain spots; in verse 15 Septuagint and Vulgate read "thy valiant one," namely, Apis. As the gadfly attacks the heifer so "destruction cometh" on Egypt, namely, Nebuchadnezzar the destroyer or agitator sent by Jehovah; Vulgate translated suitably to the image of a heifer, "a goader," qerets. Harassing severely may be meant, rather than utter destruction. Isa 15:5, Moab's "fugitives shah flee unto Zoar," on the extreme boundary S. of the Dead Sea, raising their voices as "an heifer of three years old," i.e. one in full vigor but not yet brought under the yoke, just as Moab heretofore unsubdued is now about to be subjugated. Maurer translated "Eglath shehshijah" the third Eglath, to distinguish it from two others of the name.

Numbers 19:2

This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke:

This is the ordinance of the law (Lev 4:14: cf. Heb 9:13) - an institution of a special nature ordained by law for the purification of sin, and provided at the public expense, because it was for the good of the whole community.

Red heifer ... This is the only case in which the colour of the victim is specified; and it has been supposed the ordinance was designed in opposition to the superstitious notions of the Egyptians (Maimonides, 'De Vacca rufa;' Hengstenberg, 'Egypt and Books of Moses,' pp. 173-180; Carpenter, 'Scripture Natural History,' p. 845; Spencer, 'De Vitula rufa'). That people never offered a vow but they sacrificed a red bull, the greatest care being taken by their priests in examining whether it possessed the requisite characteristics; and it was an annual offering to Typhon, their evil being. By the choice, both of the sex and the colour, provision was made for eradicating from the minds of the Israelites a favourite Egyptian superstition regarding two objects of their animal worship. 'The truth probably is,' says Hardwick ('Christ and other Masters,' vol. ii., p. 338), 'that the adoption of the red colour in both cases corresponded only because of its inherent fitness to express the thought which it was made to symbolize in each community. It was the colour of blood; and while in Egypt the idea was readily connected with the deadly, scathing, sanguinary powers of Typhon, it became in the more ethical system of the Hebrews a remembrancer of moral evil flowing out into its penal consequences, or an image of unpardoned sin (cf. Isa 1:15,18).

HEIFER

(hl*g=u#, eglah', fem. of lg#u@, "calf;" hr*P*, parah', fern. of rP*, "bullock;" Sept. and N.T. da/mali$; Vulg. vacca). The Hebrew language has no expression that exactly corresponds to our "heifer," for both eglah and parah are applied to cows that have calved (1 Sam 6:7-12; Job 21:10; Isa 7:21); indeed, eylah means a young animal of any species, the full expression being rq*B* tl^g=u#, "heifer of kine" (Deut 21:3; 1 Sam 16:2; Isa 7:21). The heifer or young cow was not commonly used for ploughing, but only for treading out the corn (Hos 10:11; but see Judg 14:18), when it ran about without any headstall (Deut 25:4); hence the expression an "unbroken heifer" (Hos 4:16; Auth. V. backsliding"), to which Israel is compared. A similar sense has been attached to the expression "calf of three years old," hY*v!yl!v= tl^g=u#, i.e. unsubdued, in Isa 15:5; Jer 48:34: but it has by some been taken as a proper name, Eglath Shelishiyah, such names being not very uncommon. The sense of" dissolute" is conveyed undoubtedly in Amos 4:1. The comparison of Egypt to a "fair heifer" (Jer 46:20) may be an allusion to the well-known form under which Apis was worshipped (to which we may also refer the words in ver. 15, as understood in the Sept., "Why is the bullock [mo/sxo$ e)klekto/$] swept away?"), the "destruction" threatened being the bite of the gad-fly, to which the word keretz would fitly apply. "To plough with another man's heifer" (Judg 14:18) implies that an advantage has been gained by unfair means. The proper names Eglah, Eneglaim, and Parah are derived from the Hebrew terms at the head of this article. See RED HEIFER.

PURIFICATION, WATER OF

Purification-waters

(hD*n!Áym@, mney - nid'dca', properly waters of uncleanness. i.e. of purification; Sept. u%dwr r(antismou= , water of sprinkling, after the Chaldee usage; comp. nedach'. hd*n=: to sprinkle [see Rosenmuller, on oNmb. 19:9]). This was a holy water of cleansing, which was mixed with the ashes of a red or reddish-brown heifer -- one which had never been under the yoke (comp. Deut 21:3; Bochart, Hieroz. i, 328: on the age of this heifer the interpreters of the law were not agreed; see Para, i, 1; Jonathan, on Numbers l.c., speaks of a two-year-old). With this water those who had contracted impurity by contact with a corpse or otherwise were sprinkled by means of a sprig or branch of hyssop, and were thus cleansed (Num 19:2 sq.; 31:19 sq.; Heb 9:13; Josephus, Ant. 4:4, 6; comp. the Talmudical tract Para, in the 6 th part of the Mishna), The ceremony of burning the heifer, which was accounted a sin-offering (Num 19:9,17), was as follows according to the law (comp. Mishna, Para, 6:4): A priest, who had set himself apart and purified himself for this work for seven days previous (ibid. iii, 1; Josephus ascribes the duty to the high-priest, which mav have been the custom in his time, although the Mishna usually speaks only of a priest, iii, 1, 9, 10; comp. Philo, opp. ii, 252; Para (, iii, 8), led it out of the Temple (through the east door, Mishna, Middoth, i, 3) before the city (on the Mount of Olives, Para, iii, 6), slew it, and burned it entire, with its flesh, skin. blood, and dung (Num 19:5), on a fire fed with cedar-wood, scarlet wool, and hyssop (comp. Lev 14:6). The ashes were then gathered, and kept in a clean place outside the city (according to the Para, iii, 2, they were divided into three parts, one of which was kept in a court outside the Temple, the second on the Mount of Olives, and the third was given to the priests). A heifer was burned thus anew whenever the supply of ashes was exhausted. The Para (iii, 5) tells us that only nine in all were ever burned, and only one of them before the captivity (Jerome, Ep. 108 cad Eustachl., says that one was burned yearly). A part of these ashes was mixed with fresh water (comp. Para, 8:8), and a clean person sprinkled with it the unclean on the third and on the seventh day after the contraction of uncleanness. With it, too, the house of the dead and the vessels rendered unclean by a corpse were sprinkled. He who burned the heifer, the priest who slew her, and the man who collected the ashes were unclean until evening (Num 19:7,8,10). The same took place in the use of the water; he who sprinkled it on the unclean, and all that touched it, were unclean until evening (19:21 sq.). This is analogous to Lev 16:24,26,28; although in that case the uncleanness contracted by contact with the goats was considered as removed immediately after the required washings. Clericus properly remarks on this passage in Numbers, "The victim was considered as unclean through the sins which the prayer of the priest placed on his head. The ashes of this victim cleansed the unclean by taking his pollution; but they also defiled the clean, because no pollution could seem to pass from them to the water." The last clause, however, is not clear.

The whole ceremony is peculiar, and suggests many questions which have never been fully solved. In particular, the symbolic meaning of the details is still unsettled, as the disagreement of recent expositors shows (Bahr, Symbol. ii, 493 sq.; Hengstenberg, Moses und Egypten, p. 181 sq.; Anonymous, Evangel. K.-Z. 1843, No. 19; Baumgarten, Comment. zum Pentat. ii, 333 sq.; Philippson, Pentat. p. 768 sq.; Kurtz, in the Stud. u. Krit. [1846], 3:629 sq.). We cannot here dwell upon this unfruitftul investigation, but will refer singly to the principal points.

• The purification of those made unclean by a corpse was effected, not by the usual means of cleansing -- pure water -- but by this sharp fluid, because this kind of uncleanness was considered very deep and sad. The reason of this is obvious. Hence the means of cleansing is a kind of lye, which is strong in its action. We find ashes and lye among the means of purification used not merely by the Romans (Virgil, Eclog. 8:101; Ovid, Faust. 4:639, 725, 733; Arnob. Gent. v, 32), but by the old Persians, who made their most powerful cleansing stuff out of water and ashes by means of fire (Zend avesta, iii, 216; another kind of sacred water used by Egyptian priests is mentioned in Ælian. Anim. 7:45). Besides, this lye among the Israelites was made, not out of ashes in general, but from the ashes of a sin offering, and from that which alone remained of this sin-offering.

• A heifer, not a bull (Lev 4:14), is used, perhaps (Bahr, p. 498) because the female sex is that which brings forth life (comp. Gen 3:20; otherwise Hengstenberg and Baumngarten -- the former interpreting too outwardly, op. cit. p. 182; the latter too artificially). But the object may have been simply to distinguish this particular sin-offering, when the animal was made a means to a hallowing purpose, from that in which it was presented to Jehovah in his sanctuary as a sacrifice of reconciliation. Yet physical uncleannless is always less burdensome than sin against the moral law (comp. Philippson, p. 769). Why a red heifer? The explanation of Spencer (Leg. Rit. ii, 15, 2, 6), that a red heifer was chosen in token of opposition to the Egyptian custom of sacrificing red cattle to Typhon, who was fancied to be of a red color (Plut. Isidor. 22), is worthless. The recent expositors of the symbols waver between red as the color of life (Bahr, Kurtz) and of sin and death (Hengstenberg). According to the rabbins, Solomon did not know the reason, and no ancient tradition respecting it has reached us. The secret will never be discovered. If it be said that red heifers were chosen for their scarcity, which rendered them prized in the East (Reland, Antiq. Sacr. ii, 5, 23; Amralkeis [ed. Lette], p. 74), the answer is only rendered more difficult. Rarity is not made an object in the directions given. Perhaps the dark color is simply selected as according with the serious nature of the work in hand, and aiding to keep the removal of sin steadily before the eye. White heifers were unfitted for this purpose; black ones are very rare in the East. As the accompaniments -- cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool, which Maimonides in his time already felt the difficulty of explaining -- have never yet been fully accounted for, Bahr's explanation is the most intelligent (p. 502 sq.), while Baumgarten's is absurd. See HYSSOP.

• The twofold sprinkling on the third and seventh days has an analogy in two other places (Lev 12:2 sq.; 14:8 sq.). That terrible impurity was not to be removed in a moment; its serious nature demanded two periods of effort. Three and seven, too, are significant numbers in themselves. The seven, or week, is also a liturgically complete period, and with it the ceremony of purification ends.

• The reason why the heifer was burned without the holy city, and the persons occupied in this work were accounted unclean, is not the impurity of the sacrifice in itself (as Bahr has well remarked), but in the fact of its relation with the most unclean things -- death and the corpse.

See, in general, Moses Maimon. Tr. de Vacca Rufa, Hebr. et Lat. (ed. Zeller, Amsterd. 1711); Marck, Dissert. ad Vet. Test. Fascic. p. 114 sq.; Deyling, Observat. iii, 89 sq.; Th. Dassov. De Vacca Rufa, Observat. Instrux. (J. G. W. Dunkel. Lips. 1758); Bashuysen, De Aspersione Sacra ex Mente Gemaristar. (Serv. 1717); Reland, Anti. Sacr. ii, 5, 23.

Numbers 19:2

The sons of Israel were to bring to Moses a red heifer, entirely without blemish, and to give it to Eleazar the priest, that he might have it slaughtered in his presence outside the camp. paaraah (OT:6510) is not a cow generally, but a young cow, a heifer, da'malis (NT:1151) (LXX), juvenca, between the calf and the full-grown cow. 'adumaah (OT:122), of a red colour, is not to be connected with tªmiymaah (OT:8549) in the sense of "quite red," as the Rabbins interpret it; but tªmiymaah (OT:8549), integra, is to be taken by itself, and the words which follow, "wherein is no blemish," to be regarded as defining it still more precisely (see Lev 22:19-20). The slaying of this heifer is called chaTaa't (OT:2403), a sin-offering, in vv. 9 and 17. To remind the congregation that death was the wages of sin, the antidote to the defilement of death was to be taken from a sin-offering.

But as the object was not to remove and wipe away sin as such, but simply to cleanse the congregation from the uncleanness which proceeded from death, the curse of sin, it was necessary that the sin-offering should be modified in a peculiar manner to accord with this special design. The sacrificial animal was not to be a bullock, as in the case of the ordinary sin-offerings of the congregation (Lev 4:14), but a female, because the female sex is the bearer of life (Gen 3:20), a paaraah (OT:6510), i.e., lit., the fruit-bringing; and of a red colour, not because the blood-red colour points to sin (as Hengstenberg follows the Rabbins and earlier theologians in supposing), but as the colour of the most "intensive life," which has its seat in the blood, and shows itself in the red colour of the face (the cheeks and lips); and one "upon which no yoke had ever come," i.e., whose vital energy had not yet been crippled by labour under the yoke.

Lastly, like all the sacrificial animals, it was to be uninjured, and free from faults, inasmuch as the idea of representation, which lay at the foundation of all the sacrifices, but more especially of the sin-offerings, demanded natural sinlessness and original purity, quite as much as imputed sin and transferred uncleanness. Whilst the last-mentioned prerequisite showed that the victim was well fitted for bearing sin, the other attributes indicated the fulness of life and power in their highest forms, and qualified it to form a powerful antidote to death. As thus appointed to furnish a reagent against death and mortal corruption, the sacrificial animal was to possess throughout, viz., in colour, in sex, and in the character of its body, the fulness of life in its greatest freshness and vigour.

Numbers 19:1-10

The ashes of purification

We have here the divine appointment concerning the solemn burning of a red heifer to ashes, and the preserving of the ashes, that of them might be made, not a beautifying, but a purifying, water, for that was the utmost the law reached to; it offered not to adorn as the gospel does, but to cleanse only. This burning of the heifer, though it was not properly a sacrifice of expiation, being not performed at the altar, yet was typical of the death and sufferings of Christ, by which he intended, not only to satisfy God's justice, but to purify and pacify our consciences, that we may have peace with God and also peace in our own bosoms, to prepare for which Christ died, not only like the bulls and goats at the altar, but like the heifer without the camp.

• There was a great deal of care employed in the choice of the heifer that was to be burnt, much more than in the choice of any other offering, v. 2. It must not only be without blemish, typifying the spotless purity and sinless perfection of the Lord Jesus, but it must a red heifer, because of the rarity of the colour, that it might be the more remarkable: the Jews say, "If but two hairs were black or white, it was unlawful." Christ, as man, was the Son of Adam, red earth, and we find him red in his apparel, red with his own blood, and red with the blood of his enemies. And it must be one on which never came yoke, which was not insisted on in other sacrifices, but thus was typified the voluntary offer of the Lord Jesus, when he said, Lo, I come, He was bound and held with no other cords than those of his own love. This heifer was to be provided at the expense of the congregation, because they were all to have a joint interest in it; and so all believers have in Christ.
• There was to be a great deal of ceremony in the burning of it. The care of doing it was committed to Eleazar, not to Aaron himself, because it was not fit that he should do any thing to render himself ceremonially unclean, no, not so much as till the evening (v. 8); yet it being an affair of great concern especially in the significancy of it, it was to be performed by him that was next to Aaron in dignity. The chief priests of that time had the principal hand in the death of Christ. Now,

• The heifer was to be slain without the camp, as an impure thing, which bespeaks the insufficiency of the methods prescribed by the ceremonial law to take away sin. So far were they from cleansing effectually that they were themselves unclean; as if the pollution that was laid upon them continued to cleave to them. Yet, to answer this type, our Lord Jesus, being made sin and a curse for us, suffered without the gate, Heb 13:12.
• Eleazar was to sprinkle the blood directly before the door of the tabernacle, and looking steadfastly towards it, v. 4. This made it in some sort an expiation; for the sprinkling of the blood before the Lord was the chief solemnity in all the sacrifices of atonement; therefore, though this was not done at the altar, yet, being done towards the sanctuary, it was intimated that the virtue and validity of it depended upon the sanctuary, and were derived from it. This signified the satisfaction that was made to God by the death of Christ, our great high priest, who by the eternal Spirit (and the Spirit is called the finger of God, as Ainsworth observes, Luke 11:20) offered himself without spot unto God; directly before the sanctuary, when he said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit. It also signifies how necessary it was to the purifying of our hearts that satisfaction should be made to divine justice. This sprinkling of the blood put virtue into the ashes.
• The heifer was to be wholly burnt, v. 5. This typified the extreme sufferings of our Lord Jesus, both in soul and body, as a sacrifice made by fire. The priest was to cast into the fire, while it was burning, cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet, which were used in the cleansing of lepers (Lev 14:6-7), that the ashes of these might be mingled with the ashes of the heifer, because they were designed for purification.
• The ashes of the heifer (separated as well as they could from the ashes of the wood wherewith it was burnt) were to be carefully gathered up by the hand of a clean person, and (as the Jews say) pounded and sifted, and so laid up for the use of the congregation, as there was occasion (v. 9), not only for that generation, but for posterity; for the ashes of this one heifer were sufficient to season as many vessels of water as the people of Israel would need for many ages. The Jews say that this one served till the captivity, nearly 1000 years, and that there was never another heifer burnt till Ezra's time, after their return, to which tradition of theirs, grounded (I suppose) only upon the silence of their old records, I see no reason we have to give credit, since in the later times of their church, of which they had more full records, they find eight burnt between Ezra's time and the destruction of the second temple, which was about 500 years, These ashes are said to be laid up here as a purification for sin, because, though they were intended to purify only from ceremonial uncleanness, yet they were a type of that purification for sin which our Lord Jesus made by his death. Ashes mixed with water are used in scouring, but these had their virtue purely from the divine institution, and their accomplishment and perfection in Christ, who is the end of this law for righteousness. Now observe,

• That the water of purification was made so by the ashes of a heifer, whose blood was sprinkled before the sanctuary; so that which cleanses our consciences is the abiding virtue of the death of Christ; it is his blood that cleanses from all sin, 1 John 1:7.
• That the ashes were sufficient for all the people. There needed not to be a fresh heifer slain for every person or family that had occasion to be purified, but this one was enough for all, even for the strangers that sojourned among them (v. 10); so there is virtue enough in the blood of Christ for all that repent and believe the gospel, for every Israelite, and not for their sins only, but for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.
• That these ashes were capable of being preserved without waste to many ages. No bodily substance is so incorruptible as ashes are, which (says bishop Patrick) made these a very fit emblem of the everlasting efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. He is able to save, and, in order to that, able to cleanse, to the uttermost, both of person and times.
• These ashes were laid up as a stock or treasure, for the constant purification of Israel from their pollutions; so the blood of Christ is laid up for us in the word and sacraments, as an inexhaustible fountain of merit, to which by faith we may have recourse daily for the purging of our consciences; see Zech 13:1.

• All those that were employed in this service were made ceremonially unclean by it; even Eleazar himself, though he did but sprinkle the blood, v. 7. He that burned the heifer was unclean (v. 8), and he that gathered up the ashes (v. 10); so all that had a hand in putting Christ to death contracted guilt by it: his betrayer, his prosecutors, his judge, his executioner, all did what they did with wicked hands, though it was by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23); yet some of them were, and all might have been cleansed by the virtue of that same blood which they had brought themselves under the guilt of. Some make this to signify the imperfection of the legal services, and their insufficiency to take away sin, inasmuch as those who prepared for the purifying of others were themselves polluted by the preparation. The Jews say, This is a mystery which Solomon himself did not understand, that the same thing should pollute those that were clean and purify those that were unclean. But (says bishop Patrick) it is not strange to those who consider that all the sacrifices which were offered for sin were therefore looked upon as impure, because the sins of men were laid upon them, as all our sins were upon Christ, who therefore is said to be made sin for us, 2 Cor 5:21.

The Water Purification for Those Defiled by the Dead. 19:1-22.

Numbers 19:1

"And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,"

Verses 1 to 10 explain how this water was to be prepared, and the rest of the chapter tells how it was to be used. Eleazar, the son of Aaron, was to oversee the slaying of a blemish-free red heifer outside the camp. He was to sprinkle its blood toward the Tabernacle seven times and then burn it entirely, blood included, together with cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet cloth. The resultant ashes were to be used to make the "water of impurity"; that is, water for removing ceremonial impurity. A person defiled by the dead was to be counted impure for seven days. He was to achieve ceremonial purity by being sprinkled with this water on the third and seventh days. On the seventh day he was to wash his clothes and flesh, and at sundown he would be "clean." One who failed to comply was to be cut off from the congregation as an unclean person.

Numbers 19:2

"This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke:"

[A red heifer] Red, in order to shadow forth man's earthly body, even as the name Adam bears allusion to the red earth of which man's body was fashioned.

[Without spot, wherein is no blemish] As with sin-offerings generally (Lev 4:3).

[Upon which never came yoke] So here and elsewhere (see the marginal references), in the case of female victims.

19:2 The opening phrasing of the verse is awkward and unusual: “This is the statute of the Torah.” It seems quite likely that the Hebrew word äøˆåzÊä— (hattorah “the Torah” or “law”) is a scribal error for the word äøˆtÈä— (happarah “the heifer”), in which case the verse should begin: “This is the statute of the [red] heifer.” Compare the wording of 6:13 : “This is the Torah for the Nazirite.”

19:9 The term äcŸð„ (niddah) is a feminine noun meaning “impurity,” likely related to the verb nadad (“to flee, depart”). The noun is used to describe ceremonial impurity in such cases as a man having sexual congress with a brother’s wife ( Lev 20:21 —a forbidden act) and a woman’s uncleanness caused by her menstruation ( Lev 12:2 ). The phrase äcŸð„ éîÅìÀ (leme niddah “for waters of purification”) thus literally means “waters of defilement” but has the derived meaning “waters that purify from defilement”; hence, “waters of cleansing” as in the NIV.

19:10 The BHS text has a space following the phrase “till evening.” It is as though a new verse number should have been placed before the words beginning “This will be for the Israelites.” We have similar problems in verse division from time to time in Numbers; see 26:1 .

19:13 êø‡fÉ (zoraq “sprinkled”) is to be parsed as a Qal passive perfect rather than a Pual (as in BDB, p. 284c). The general rule is this: If a verb is used as the passive of the simple, basic stem and there is no Piel attested, then the supposed Pual is really a passive formation of the simple (Qal) stem. The use of the Qal passive has nearly disappeared, except in the participle; the Masoretes tended to treat them as Puals. See, e.g., “a child will be born” in Isa 9:6 [5 MT], a simple passive (Qal) rather than a Pual (NIV, “a child is born”).

19:16 Touching a dead body was a matter of serious consequence. One would think twice
before extending a casual touch, given these laws. These factors heighten our appreciation of those who cared for the body of the Savior Jesus, helped with his burial, and planned for anointing his body after the Passover and Sabbath were completed. These loving disciples were voluntarily placing themselves in a position of ritual uncleanness for seven days. Yet it was something they did without hesitation; such was their love for him.

NEWS FLASH: Red Heifer Born in Israel!

Update: In November, 2002, the red heifer born in Israel in April became disqualified.

9. HOLY COW!

The birth of a red heifer (cow) in a farm in the religious youth village of Kfar Hasidim (near Haifa) has excited sectors in the religious community. A delegation of some 25 experts, including Rabbis Yisrael Ariel and Yoseph Elboim, visited the farm last week to examine the six-month old cow, and concluded that it is in fact an acceptable red heifer, according to Torah requirements. However, the cow must be at least two years old before it can be used. Until then, the cow will be carefully watched to ensure that nothing occurs to invalidate its status. According to Biblical law, the cow's ashes are used for purification from certain forms of impurity, and is therefore a prerequisite for the renewal of Holy Temple service.

Arutz Sheva News Service Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Adar Bet 9, 5757

Ashes of the Red Heifer

Holy Cow?