Fw: Dvar Torah from the Rosh HaYeshiva - Parshas Chukas – 5785

Sent from AOL on Android

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "Rabbi Moshe Revah" <htcnews-htc.edu@shared1.ccsend.com>

To: "mates57564@aol.com" <mates57564@aol.com>

Cc:

Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 4:03 PM

Subject: Dvar Torah from the Rosh HaYeshiva - Parshas Chukas – 5785

Parshas Chukas – 5785

Dear Yeshiva Family: In this week's parshah, we learn about Tumas Mes — the spiritual impurity that comes from contact with a human corpse. This is the most stringent form of tumah and applies to anyone who touches, carries, or is under the same roof as a deceased person, or even part of corpse. In the times of the Beis HaMikdash, becoming tahor again required a unique purification process using the ashes of the Parah Adumah (the red heifer) mixed with water, the topic of our Parshah. Even though we no longer have the Beis HaMikdash, these halachos still have real-life implications today, especially for Kohanim, who must avoid cemeteries, hospitals where there are deceased, and even flying over graveyards, in order to maintain their state of ritual purity. Alongside the regular laws of Tumas Mes, Chazal teach us an important concept called Cherev KeChalal — "a sword is like a corpse." This halachah, learned from a gezeiras hakasuv (a Scriptural decree) in our Parasha, teaches that metal objects which touch a corpse themselves become like the corpse in terms of tumah severity. In other words, the metal doesn't just transmit impurity—it actually becomes an avi avos ha-tumah, the highest level of tumah, just like the dead body itself. Rav Chaim Kohen, one of the Rishonim, raises a fascinating question: if metal becomes like a corpse, does this mean Kohanim need to be wary of metal objects that might have become tamei? He famously invokes the possuk, Eizeh bayis asher tivnu li — "What house can you build for Me?" — how can a Kohen survive in society if this halacha was true, explaining that it's inconceivable for Kohanim to be perpetually afraid of every piece of metal in their surroundings. The Ramban in Parashas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:16) agrees to Rav Chaim Cohen and writes that from the discussions in the Mishnah and Gemara, it appears that a sword which became tamei through contact with a corpse indeed transmits tumah through touch (maggah) and carrying (massah), just like a corpse itself, however, he explains that it is not entirely like a corpse in all respects, and specifically, it does not transmit tumah via ohel—that is, it does not render people or objects tamei simply by being under the same roof. The Ramban suggests that the Torah limits tumas ohel to the human body alone, as implied by the verse, "Adam ki yamus ba'ohel — A man who dies in a tent." He further points out the above consequence: if a sword that touched a corpse could transmit tumah through ohel, kohanim would essentially be forbidden from entering any homes, since such any metal might be present there and make the entire house tamei. This Ramban thus sets a clear boundary on how far the principle of cherev kechalal extends. From the Ramban it is clear that if a cherev transmits tumah through Ohel, then it would be impossible for Kohanim to live. However, that very Ramban goes on to explain that there are other limitations to this rule. The Ramban continues: "Similarly, it also appears from the Gemara (ibid. 54b) that a sword which touched a corpse does not render a person tamei in a way that would require him to undergo the sprinkling of the waters of purification on the third and seventh days, even though this person who touched the sword would indeed be an av hatumah (primary source of impurity). The reason for this is that in the second verse [about sprinkling] which states, 'and he shall sprinkle upon the tent…' (verse 18), it also says: 'and upon the one who touched a bone, or a slain body (chalal), or a corpse,' but it does not mention 'or a slain sword (chalal cherev).' Consequently, the sword is like a corpse in that it transmits seven-day tumah through touch, but it does not transmit tumah via ohel, nor does it require the person who touches it to undergo the sprinkling ritual. Furthermore, a nazir does not shave on account of it, and a kohen is under no prohibition regarding contact with it at all. This, in my opinion, is the closest and most accurate understanding of our Sages' words. And we, due to our sins, remain in the impurity of exile and do not truly know the laws of purity relating to the sanctuary, until the spirit from on high will pour forth upon us, and Hashem will sprinkle pure waters upon us, and we shall be purified. Amen, may it be His will, speedily in our days." From this second part of the Ramban, it's clear that he concludes there are significant limitations to the rule of cherev kechalal. He states explicitly that kohanim do not have to be concerned about this tumah at all and are even permitted to touch a sword that became tamei through contact with a corpse. However, this seems to create a contradiction within the Ramban himself. Earlier, he argued that a sword does not transmit tumas ohel precisely because, if it did, kohanim would be unable to enter any homes out of concern that a tamei sword might be present. That implies kohanim do have to avoid such tumah to some extent. Yet, in his concluding remarks, the Ramban seems to go further and asserts—without citing any additional proof—that kohanim have no need to be cautious about this tumah whatsoever, even regarding direct contact. This creates a genuine stirah in the Ramban's position. Rav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky zt"l from Yeshivas Ner Yisrael in Baltimore (Bava Kamma 7) offers an approach to resolve this apparent contradiction, based on a fundamental chakirah. When we say cherev kechalal, what exactly is the nature of the tumah in the sword? Is it merely part of the ordinary chain of tumah emanating from the corpse—in other words, just like any other object that becomes tamei and continues the regular progression of tumah, where an av hatumah produces a rishon letumah, and a rishon can produce a sheni, except that here there's a unique gezeiras hakasuv that the tumah remains undiminished and the sword retains the status of an av hatumah? Or is cherev kechalal something entirely new—a separate halachic phenomenon whereby metal objects that come into contact with a corpse acquire their own independent tumah status, effectively becoming the origin of a new tumah, rather than merely a continuation of the corpse's tumah? Rav Kulefsky employs this chakirah to explain several other disputes among the Rishonim throughout Shas, but specifically, it offers a powerful resolution to our question here. For example, Rav Kulefsky explains that this very chakirah underlies the dispute among the Rishonim regarding whether a nazir must shave if he becomes tamei through contact with metal that became tamei via cherev kechalal. Rabbeinu Tam maintains that the tumah in the sword is essentially the same tumah as that of the corpse itself, and the Torah simply decrees that it does not diminish in intensity. Therefore, the sword remains an av ha'avos hatumah like the corpse, and just as a nazir shaves upon becoming tamei from a corpse, so too he must shave if he becomes tamei through the sword. In contrast, Rabbeinu Chaim Kohen holds that the tumah in the metal is entirely new and originates within the metal itself, rather than being transferred directly from the corpse. Consequently, a nazir would not shave for this tumah, because a nazir is required to shave only for tumah that comes from a human corpse. This dispute vividly illustrates the core question: is cherev kechalal merely an extension of the corpse's tumah, or an entirely new halachic entity? Rav Kulefsky further cites the Ramban in Bava Basra, who writes that the Tosefta explicitly states that a nazir does not shave except for tumah stemming from contact with an actual corpse. From this, the Ramban concludes that a nazir does not shave even for tumas cherev kechalal. Moreover, the Ramban infers from this that a sword is not treated like a corpse with respect to tumas ohel or the requirement for the sprinkling of the parah adumah waters. For if the sword were fully equivalent to a corpse in all respects, why would a nazir not be obligated to shave for becoming tamei through it? Rav Kulefsky explains that this fits perfectly with the chakirah we have described. The entire question of whether a nazir must shave for this tumah depends on whether cherev kechalal represents tumah that flows directly from the corpse itself, or whether it is a new kind of tumah that merely resembles tumas meis. According to Rabbeinu Tam, who rules that a nazir does shave for this tumah, the sword retains the same essential tumah as the corpse, and thus would also transmit tumas ohel. However, if we hold that a nazir does not shave for this tumah, as Rabbeinu Chaim Kohen maintains, then it is not considered tumas meis itself, and therefore it would not transmit tumas ohel either. This makes the Ramban's inference completely understandable: the nazir's obligation—or lack thereof—becomes the litmus test for whether cherev kechalal is an extension of tumas meis or a separate halachic category altogether. Now, with all of this in mind, we can resolve the original contradiction we noticed in the Ramban's words. As Rav Kulefsky explains, at the beginning of his discussion, the Ramban is working within the view that holds that cherev kechalal transmits tumah via ohel. If that were true, then the sword's tumah would indeed be considered an extension of tumas meis itself, and kohanim would necessarily be forbidden from contact with it. However, after the Ramban demonstrates that cherev kechalal does not transmit tumah through ohel, he concludes that kohanim have no prohibition regarding this tumah, since it is not derived directly from the corpse. In other words, the Ramban's apparent contradiction dissolves once we recognize that his initial concern about kohanim was based on the assumption that the sword's tumah is genuine tumas meis—but once he establishes that it is a separate, new tumah which does not extend to ohel, there is no longer any reason for kohanim to be cautious about it. Beautiful! Have an amazing Shabbos! Rabbi Moshe Revah Rosh HaYeshiva Moshe.revah@htc.edu HTC  Hebrew Theological College is a member of Touro University and a partner with the Jewish United Fund in serving our community

Hebrew Theological College | 7135 N. Carpenter Road | Skokie, IL 60077 US