b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
- To: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:58:46 -0400
No, chukim does not refer to the plural form of statutes, ordinances AND decrees.
The Torah distinguishes between three types of Mitzvot (Deut. 4:45) - 1. Edot = testimonies, they are the mitzvot that testify to G-d's miracles, such as Shabbat, which testifies to Creation, or Matzah, which testifies to the Exodus. 2. Mishpatim = ordinances, most of the mitzvot fall into this category. They are laws that make sense, human intelligence even can know how necessary they are for the benefit of society; they represent laws that are valid even had they not been written in the Torah, such as the prohibitions against robbery, murder, and incest. Mishpatim are generally accepted laws which are found in the legal systems of most human cultures and civilizations. 3. Chukim = decrees, they are the mitzvot which cannot be understood by ordinary human intellect, such as not mixing milk and meat, not wearing wool and linen together, they are decrees of G-d, and it is not for anyone to question it, and they set Israel apart from the rest of the nations.
Parah Adumah is called by the Torah "Chukat HaTorah" and "Chukat Olam", (Numbers 19: 1 - 10 and 19:21) it is the quintessential "chok" or "chukkah". There is no lack of explanations of why Parah Adumah was red, or female, or was not to have ever carried a yoke, or the reason that the ritual involves the use of cedarwood, hyssop and a thread dyed with the blood of a worm, and we "even" know that Parah Adumah is in response to the sin of the golden calf. This is not the mystery of Parah Adumah.
Parah Adumah is the only way that a person who became defiled, rendered ritually impure, by contact with death, could become purified. The process of preparing the parah, and its ashes, and what ingredients to mix them with, and how to divide them, and where to put them, was very detailed, and while sprinkling the ashes purified the person (and his clothing, and in some cases a tent and some of the vessels inside of it, in which there was a dead person) who had become defiled, everyone who was involved in the process of preparing the ashes, as well as performing the service, themselves became defiled, including their clothes.
The Red Heifer "purified the impure and made impure the pure." How does something that has the ability to purify one person cause impurity in another - this is not subject to human understanding.
And no, we did not "forget" anything - thanks to the Oral Torah, and the mesorah which was accurately transmitted through people, all the names of whom we know, through the generations. We "even" know that Parah Adumah is in response to the sin of the golden calf.
This whole conversation is a result of someone saying that Judaism, or Torah, is simply a way of life that makes sense. That is not at all true, that is just trivializing it, robbing it of its depth and complexities, and relationship with G-d.
Shoshanna
Shoshanna Walker wrote:
There are many of the 613 positive and negative commandments that
make NO SENSE (red heifer is the classic example). They are called
"chukim" - ie; we are not supposed to understand the reasoning behind
them.
HH: Doesn't "chukim" refer to the plural form of
the Hebrew word for "statute, ordinance, decree"?
I am familiar with this way of looking at such
regulations of the law, but it may be that we have
lost some of the meaning that the institutions
had for the ancient Israelites, such as the reason
why it was a heifer and not a bull calf, and the
demand for the red color. Parts of the ordinance
are quite comprehensible, enough for us to find
the law meaningful, even if we do not grasp all
the details.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
-
[b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Ethel Jean (Kowan) Saltz, 10/18/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Harold Holmyard, 10/18/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Shoshanna Walker, 10/18/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Harold Holmyard, 10/18/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Shoshanna Walker, 10/22/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense, Harold Holmyard, 10/23/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Shoshanna Walker, 10/22/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Harold Holmyard, 10/18/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Shoshanna Walker, 10/18/2006
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Ethel Jean (Kowan) Saltz, 10/18/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense, Harold Holmyard, 10/18/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense, Clayton Javurek, 10/18/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense, Shoshanna Walker, 10/23/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Shoshanna Walker, 10/23/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense, Harold Holmyard, 10/24/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense, George Athas, 10/26/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Shoshanna Walker, 10/26/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense, Harold Holmyard, 10/26/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense,
Harold Holmyard, 10/18/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.