How good is the analogy?

Published March 04, 2010

This will be another look at a topic that needs many looks, before we can begin to understand what’s going on.

Any time we read from two Torahs (or, less frequently, three) on a Shabbat, we can ask ourselves (or each other) if there is a connection between Parshat HaShavua, which we read from the first Torah, and the Maftir in the second Torah. More often than not, there is no real connection; the second reading is a result of the calendar and does not necessarily have a connection to the weekly sedra.

Perhaps the strongest connection between a Parshat HaShavua and a Maftir occurs this Shabbat. Parshat Ki Tisa and Parshat Para go together meaningfully.
Or do they?

Let’s back up. What makes them seem to go together so nicely is Rashi’s quoting of a Midrash Agada based on the teaching of Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan. The Rashi is found in Parshat Chukat (where this week’s Maftir comes from) AFTER his regular commentary on the whole first chapter. When you look at the Rashi you might be struck by the unusual style of a second set of explanations for a whole section of the Torah, rather than the usual DAVAK ACHEIR that are found throughout Rashi’s Torah commentary.

This drash explains the Para Aduma in context of the golden calf. In the box below is part of the quote from Rashi: It is a MASHAL (analogous) to the son of a maidservant who dirtied the palace of the king. Let the mother come and clean up the mess made by her son. So too, let the red heifer come and atone for her son the golden calf.

Rashi continues to give several details of the Para Aduma that reflect on the atonement for the sin of the golden calf.

Here’s the problem. If we were talking about korbanot (sacrifices) and the use of bulls for some of them, then we can say - and commentaries do say - that the choice of a bull (among other animals) is analogous to the father cow atoning for his son the Eigel (calf). Korbanot are for atonement. The Mizbei’ach is an atoning item in the Mikdash.

But the Para Aduma is not a korban. It is not offered on the Mizbei’ach. It is not even prepared in the Mikdash area or on Har HaBayit, but across the valley on the Mount of Olives. The potion of the ashes of the Para Aduma are not for atonement from sin - they are for ritual purification of one who is defiled from contact with a dead body. Being TAMEI is not a sin; sometimes, it is even a mitzva.

Is this a flaw in the analogy? Does the Para Aduma clean up the mess of her son, the golden calf? What’s the connection between ritual purification and the sin of the calf?

Perhaps we can see the connection this way - between ritual defilement to a dead body and sin. Why is a dead body such a powerful source of TUM’A? It did not have to be that way. A dead body could have been merely like the shell of an egg or the peel of a fruit - it is the receptacle of the soul. It is the house in which the soul lives during a person’s lifetime. Take the soul away and you just have an empty shell. No automatic source of defilement. Just the shell.

Ah! But the body is not just the housing of the soul. It is the active partner of the soul. The combination of a body and a soul makes the person what he is. And makes the Jew what he is. The Jew is commanded to keep the Torah and do mitzvot. He is commanded to be holy. The soul of a person is T’HORA - it is pure. It is CHEILEK ELOKUT, part of the essence of G-d. But the soul does not act on its own. It is partnered with a body and together, the resulting person lives his life. If, for the Jew, that life is a life of Torah and mitzvot, then the body has not worked at crossed purposes with its partner, the NESHAMA. But if the person sins, then the body has betrayed its soul, betrayed its sacred trust.

Therefore, the body (of one who has sinned during his lifetime - which is everyone) devoid of the NESHAMA T’HORA, the pure soul, is an object of TUM’A and it is M’TAMEI - it defiles those who come into contact with it. It did not have to be that way; but human behavior made it that way.

A dead body is not inherently TAMEI. Its status as AVI AVOT HATUM’A, the source of the “greatest” form of ritual impurity, is due to the existence of SIN.

CHEIT HA’EIGEL, the sin of the golden calf, is the quintessential example of communal sin. Based on what’s been said so far, it represents the reason (so to speak) of the existence of TUM’AT MEIT. It follows then, that asking the mother to clean up the mess of her son is an appropriate analogy.