Tzav-Parah
Parah Adumah – Red Heifer
Could the recipe (the “Torah”) for the red heifer be symbolic time travel, going back to a time without death?
|
Garden of Eden |
Red Heifer |
|
|
Before Agriculture |
Animals were not worked. |
The red heifer has to be unyoked by man. |
|
Defect-Free |
The first animals lacked defects or blemishes |
The red heifer must not have defects or blemishes |
|
The natural world |
The dirt/ashes represent the vitality of the freshly created earth |
Adumah (red) is a pun with Adamah (earth) Parah (cow) shares the root of Pri (fruit/procreation – also first mentioned on the third day). Together, they are the physical vitality of the earth (lacking the spiritual component which G-d/man provide). The cow is the elemental embodiment of the physical world. |
|
Building Blocks |
G-d uses the dust/ashes to create man, a building material |
The red heifer is burned (saraf), just as the bricks for the Tower of Babel were burned (saraf). Both become building blocks. The burning transforms the cow into its essence. |
|
Creation of Man |
Man is made of “living spirit” and ashes |
Man is anointed with “living water” and ashes |
|
3 and 7 |
Physical life is created on the third day, and a connection with the divine is established the seventh |
The living water and ashes are applied on the third and seventh days: physical and spiritual rebirth |
|
Limitation |
When G-d created man, He limited Himself in so doing! In other words, creating man required G-d to shrink, to contract. |
The person who sprinkles the water and ashes, who symbolically makes the anointed person reborn, is themselves specifically made tamei, limited in spiritual growth. |
If so, can the other elements (grass, red thread, cedar) fit into the same theme? Consider the red thread, the tolaat shani. Might that be a pun, for “second time,” adding to the “reset” theory for the parah adumah?
Unit of Measure?
In the Torah, an “Efa” is a unit measurement of flour used for baking (Ex. 16:36). And it is also the name of the profession: a baker in the Torah (Gen 40:1) is also “Efa.”
Should we learn something from the fact that the measurement is only of products (flour) that are refined and ready for use by the eponymous baker? That the Torah does not use a unit found in nature instead?
Perpetual?
The Torah has a word for “perpetual” – olam:
And the Lord G-d said, Behold, the man is become like one of Us, knowing good and evil: and now, what if he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eating, live forever (olam)?
And
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not dwell within man forever (olam).
So why, if there is a perfectly good word like olam, does the Torah use a different word, tamid, to mean the same thing? Surely the Torah does not use two words to mean the same thing?!
Perhaps we can analyze the text to better understand?
In the text, tamid is, with only one exception, only used in connection with the mikdash. E.g.
So it was always (tamid): the cloud covered [the tabernacle] by day, and the appearance of fire by night.
… And thou shalt set upon the table showbread before me always (tamid)
… And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always (tamid).
And so on. Tamid is found 35 times in the text! And all (but one) are connected to the mikdash. There is no commandment to love our neighbor tamid. No commandment dealing with other people is called tamid. Not a single one. Why?
On top of this: As we know all too well, these “perpetual” elements of the mikdash have not been present for over two thousand years! How can tamid mean “perpetual”?
What does tamid really mean?
Could it be that tamid has two facets: “ongoing will”, and “anchored”?
Is tamid integrally linked with man’s ongoing investment, needing to be constantly renewed? Might that explain why the first use of tamid is for an agricultural product:
And thou shalt set upon the table showbread before me always (tamid).
because agriculture requires a constantly renewed investment?
If so, does that explain why tamid is described only regarding the Mikdash? After all, nothing before it in the Torah was meant to be timeless, perpetual. Is the Mikdash trying to establish a temporal anchor, something that does not move or change, but is still dependent on being serviced by mankind?
Is only the mikdash tamid because most of our mitzvos can only be done while we live, but the mikdash is intergenerational, requiring generations of renewed service?
If this is right, then does olam simply mean “forever” without requiring any specific choices, while tamid is conditional on ongoing and conscious investment?
Tamid – The Exception
If the above is true, how can we explain the one exception to tamid referring to the mikdash?
Therefore shall you keep all the commandments which I command you this day, that you may be strong, and go in and possess the land, into which you go to possess it …a land which the Lord thy God cares for: the eyes of the Lord thy God are always (tamid) upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.
Is there reciprocity here? That if man consistently reinvests to keep the connection created by the mikdash alive, tamid, then G-d returns the favor, by keeping His eyes on the land and our behavior inside it?
Or is there a better explanation for what tamid means, and why it is used instead of olam?