27 Jun PARASHAT HUKAT- UNCONDITIONAL COMMITMENT

The Torah in Parashat
Hukat present the law of
Para Aduma – the “red
heifer” whose ashes
were used to prepare
the purifying waters, through which people
and objects would be purified after becoming
Tameh (impure). In introducing this Misva,
the Torah proclaims, “Zot Hukat Ha’Torah” –
“this is the statute of the Torah.”
The Misva of Para Aduma is the quintessential
“Hok” – law whose reason cannot be
understood by the human mind. Our Sages
teach that even King Shlomo, the wisest man
who ever lived, was unable to determine the
reason behind this law, whereby the ashes of
a red cow bring purity to somebody who had
become impure.
Interestingly, the Torah refers to this Misva as
“Hukat Ha’Torah” – the “statute” of the entire
Torah. What this might mean is that the “Hok”
of Para Aduma reveals that ultimately, all the
Misvot are, in a sense, a “Hok,” a law whose
reasoning eludes human comprehension.
Although reasons have been given for many
of the Misvot, ultimately, we accept them
irrespective of their reasons. The Hebrew
word for “reason” is “Ta’am” – which also
means “taste” or “flavor.” The reasons
given for the Misvot add “flavor” to the
Misvot, making them more enjoyable, more

meaningful and more fulfilling, but they are
not the essence of the Misvot. Just as a person
cannot subsist on salt and pepper, we cannot
spiritually “subsist” if our Misva performance
is rooted solely in our understanding of the
reasons.
For example, if we observe Misvot only
because of our understanding of their reasons,
we’ll end up driving to the synagogue on
Shabbat – after all, Shabbat is a day of
rest, and driving is far more relaxing and
comfortable than walking. We’ll also end up
turning on lights on Shabbat, assuming that
kindling a flame was forbidden only when this
entailed hard work and effort, but not when
we just need to flip a switch.
The reasons given for the Misvot are just
the “flavor,” the “seasoning,” to make the
experience of Misva performance more
fulfilling. But ultimately, we observe them
because G-d commanded us to, and this is
itself enough of a reason.
I often tell Bar-Misva boys that the Tefillin
Shel Yad is placed upon the arm before the
Tefillin Shel Rosh is placed on the head
to convey this message – that we must
commit to perform the Misvot before we
try to understand them. The arm represents
action, and the head represents thought and
understanding. We place the Tefillin on our

arms first to show that we commit to perform
the Misvot unconditionally, even before
we try to understand them with our minds.
Just as Beneh Yisrael proclaimed, “Na’aseh
Ve’nishma” – “We will do and we will
hear” (Shemot 24:7), committing to perform
the Misvot before they even heard what is
entailed, we, too, must make an unconditional
commitment, irrespective of our ability to
understand the reason behind the Misvot.
And thus the law of Para Aduma is the “Hukat
Ha’Torah” – a Misva which is representative
of the entire Torah. Just as this Misva is
binding even though we cannot understand its
reason, we must accept each and every Misva
as unconditionally binding, regardless of its
reason.
This might explain why this Misva is presented
immediately after Parashat Korah, which tells
the story of Korah’s uprising against Moshe.
The Midrash, as Rashi cites, tells that Korah
challenged Moshe by presenting him with
a garment made entirely of wool dyed in
Techelet, the special blue dye with which one
of the Sisit strings is to be dyed. The purpose
of this blue thread of Sisit is to make us
mindful of the heavens, thereby reminding us
of our obligations to Hashem. Korah took a
garment dyed entirely in Techelet, and asked
whether such a garment requires Sisit strings.

Moshe replied that it does, just as any other
garment requires Sisit. Korah then mocked
Moshe, arguing that if one blue thread on each
edge of a garment suffices to remind a person
of the Misvot, then certainly a garment dyed
entirely blue should suffice, without requiring
strings.
Korah decided that he can decide Torah law
based on the reasons of the Misvot, that he can
determine whether a Misva does or does not
apply based on his logic. He did not accept the
message of “Hukat Ha’Torah,” that we must
accept all the Torah’s laws unconditionally,
irrespective of their rationale.
And for this reason, perhaps, these two
Parashiyot are juxtaposed. The response to the
tragic story of Korah is Parashat Hukat – our
unconditional commitment to each and every
law of the Torah, even as we add “flavor”
by trying to understand their underlying
rationale.