In a recent video, linked below, hosted by Adam King, featuring participants including Byron Stinson, Rabbi Eliyahu Berkowitz, and Rabbi Baria Shakar, numerous assertions were made regarding the ritual of the פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה (parah adumah, red heifer), as outlined in בְּמִדְבַּר י”ט (Bamidbar 19, Numbers 19). The discussion, intended as a debate on the validity and implications of a purported red heifer ceremony, included claims that diverge significantly from the explicit directives of the מִשְׁנָה (Mishnah) in מַסֶּכֶת פָּרָה (Masechet Parah). While the video expresses enthusiasm for temple restoration, a commendable aspiration, it introduces inaccuracies that warrant correction to preserve the sanctity of halakhah. This rebuttal draws upon foundational sources, including the Mishnah, the Talmud Bavli (particularly Yoma), and the Rambam’s הִלְכוֹת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה (Hilchot Parah Adumah) in the Mishneh Torah, to address these claims systematically. These texts represent the core of halakhic tradition, emphasizing precision over interpretive leniencies from later writings.

Gratitude to Byron Stinson

First, gratitude must be extended to Byron Stinson for his dedication. As a non-Jew motivated by a profound respect for biblical mandates, Stinson invested substantial resources, nearly a million dollars, to import red heifers from Texas to Israel in 2022, aiming to facilitate their use in purification. In the video, he recounts his journey: “I spent close to a million dollars to get cows there. And they’ve been there since 2022.” His efforts reflect a sincere desire for collaboration, as he states, “I’m here to serve. I’m here to do whatever I can.” Such commitment deserves recognition, aligning with the prophetic vision of nations supporting Israel’s redemption (יְשַׁעְיָהוּ ס’:י’, Yeshayahu 60:10, Isaiah 60:10). However, while his intentions are laudable, the halakhic framework requires that actions conform to Torah law, not personal zeal. Let’s take a look.

Acquisition of the Heifer

Given that these funds were likely raised from Christian sources, the actual owners should be compensated properly for the animals themselves, ensuring clear Jewish ownership under halakhah. An estimated reimbursement covering his personal expenses plus a premium, would fulfill this. This invokes David HaMelech’s principle in דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים א’ כ”א:כ”ד (Divrei HaYamim Alef 21:24, 1 Chronicles 21:24): “I will not offer burnt offerings to Hashem my God that cost me nothing” (לֹא אֶעֱלֶה לַיקֹוָק אֱלֹהַי עֹלוֹת חִנָּם). Though not an offering itself, the parah adumah enables all of Israel in bringing voluntary korbanot (offerings), so purchase it outright to remove any doubt.

Inaccuracies in Location

One central inaccuracy concerns the location of the ritual. King asserts, “There’s an entire debate, could a red heifer be done in Alexandria, where many rabbis say that yes, it could be done in Alexandria.” He further justifies performing it in Shilo, citing the Tabernacle’s historical presence there for 369 years and the absence of a current Temple. Yet, the Mishnah in Parah 3:6-3:7 mandates that the heifer be led from the Temple Mount across a ramp to the הר הזיתים (Har HaZeitim, Mount of Olives), ensuring a direct line of sight to the קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים (Kodesh HaKodashim, Holy of Holies) for sprinkling the blood seven times (Parah 3:9). The Rambam reinforces this in Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:6-3:7, stating that the ritual is inextricably tied to Jerusalem’s sanctity once established by David HaMelech. Once the Temple site was chosen in Jerusalem, it permanently closed the door to all other locations forever, as codified in the Rambam’s הִלְכוֹת בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה ב’:א’ (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:1, Laws of the Chosen House 2:1): “The site of the altar is very exact and may never be changed” (מְקוֹם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְדֻקְדָּק הוּא בְּיוֹתֵר וְאֵין לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ לְעוֹלָם).

Talmudic Context on Location

Talmudic debates in Yoma 41a-b focus on procedural details like visibility but do not permit relocation. The Talmud in Zevachim 107b prohibits offerings outside Jerusalem after the site’s selection, per דְּבָרִים י”ב:ה’-י”א (Devarim 12:5-11, Deuteronomy 12:5-11): “But to the place which Hashem your God shall choose” (כִּי אִם אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵיכֶם). Performing the rite elsewhere invalidates it, as it severs the symbolic connection to the Temple.

Who May Slaughter the Heifer

Another claim presented involves who may slaughter the heifer. King declares, “A cohane doesn’t even have to be the one who sacrif makes the the slaughter? Did you know that? It could be any Jew.” This appears to stem from a conflation with general Temple offerings, where any Israelite may perform shechitah (slaughter) if knowledgeable, per Mishnah Zevachim 5:1: “כל השחיטות כשרות בזר” (“All acts of slaughter are valid when performed by a non-priest”). In practice, it was common for a kohen to handle it to avoid errors in intent (machshavah) that could render the offering pasul (unacceptable), but laypersons could do so if desired (Rambam, Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 4:1). However, this flexibility does not apply to the parah adumah, a unique chok performed outside the Temple. It contradicts Bamidbar 19:3, where the task is assigned to אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן (Eleazar HaKohen, Eleazar the Priest), elaborated in Mishnah Parah 4:1-4:2 as requiring a Kohen under oversight. The Rambam in Hilchot Parah Adumah 4:1 specifies: “The slaughter of the red heifer is performed by a priest” (שְׁחִיטָתָהּ בְּכֹהֵן). Talmudic discussion in Yoma 42a distinguishes gathering ashes from slaughter, which remains priestly (Yoma 41b). No authoritative source endorses lay participation for the heifer.

Blemishes and Qualification

On blemishes, the video debates warts, a broken tail, or a dog bite, with King asserting the heifer was certified kosher despite discrepancies. My personal review of the burning revealed, “The heifer was transported by truck to the site and likely forced onto the pile.” However, Mishnah Parah 2:5 demands perfection: “Even two hairs that are not red invalidate it” (אֲפִלּוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן אֲדֻמּוֹת פּוֹסְלוֹת). The Rambam in Hilchot Parah Adumah 2:1-5 classifies warts or deformities as מוּם (mum, blemish), disqualifying the animal permanently. Transportation must be voluntary on foot (Parah 2:3-2:4; Rambam 3:6), not by truck, to avoid coercion or impurity.

The role of non-Jews, exemplified by Stinson’s involvement, is another point of contention. King treats Stinson’s testimony as authoritative, asking, “Byron, were there warts on this cow’s neck?” Yet, Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:7-2:6 rejects non-Jewish testimony even for the new moon sighting, let alone sacred rites. The Rambam in Hilchot Parah Adumah 1:1 limits participation to pure Israelites. Stinson’s gathering and distribution of ashes, “Byron also gathered the ashes and gave half to the temple institute”, violates Parah 3:10-3:11, where collection requires a second טָהוֹר (tahor, pure) individual. While the Torah (Bamidbar 19:9) permits a זָר (zar, non-priest) if tahor. However, today, the lack of clean non-Kohanim due to universal tum’at met (Rambam, Hilchot Tum’at Met 1:1-3) necessitates at least two clean Kohanim: one to slaughter and burn (becoming impure), and another to gather ashes for purification, as the first cannot purify himself. Only a clean Kohen may sprinkle, which impurifies him. This is the חֹק (chok, statute) mystery King mentions, per Mishnah Parah 3:5 and Yoma 67b: it purifies the impure while defiling the pure…a real mystery.

The pyre’s composition, appeared to be “4x4s and plywood,” deviates from Mishnah Parah 3:8-3:9, which specifies עֵץ אֶרֶז (etz erez, cedar wood), אֵזוֹב (ezov, hyssop), and שְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת (sheni tola’at, scarlet wool). The Rambam in Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:8 mandates natural, pure woods, which would exclude processed materials. The ceremony depicted in the video did not follow the required pyre structure, which the Mishnah describes as resembling a tower or male form (Mishnah Parah 3:8), and the use of plywood introduces glues and adhesives not permitted, as these could harbor impurities or foreign elements contrary to the ritual’s demand for unadulterated, natural components (Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:8). Such deviations compromise the fire’s sanctity and the ashes’ efficacy.

Sensations from the Ashes

Claims of sensations from the ashes, “the spiritual and somatic sensations… as if the energetic shell of the egg… totally first cracked and then completely peeled”, lack halakhic basis. Mishnah Parah 11:1-12:5 describes objective purification from tum’at met, not subjective experiences. The Rambam in Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:1-5 confirms this as legal restoration for Temple access, without mention of psychosomatic effects. Sensations prove nothing; confirmed healings, even if real, may test fidelity to Hashem, per דְּבָרִים י”ג:ד’ (Devarim 13:4, Deuteronomy 13:4): “You shall not heed the words of that prophet… for Hashem your God is testing you” (לֹא תִשְׁמַע אֶל דִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא… כִּי מְנַסֶּה יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֶתְכֶם). Association with avodah zarah (foreign worship), such as in Christian contexts invoking “the son,” in Byron’s personal ash use, invalidates the ashes (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:1-1:9; Rambam, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:1-2:2). In my humble opinion any ashes held by the Temple Institute should be discarded, perhaps into the Dead Sea, per halakhic precedents for invalidated sacred items (Mishnah Yadayim 4:5; Rambam, Hilchot Parah Adumah 5:1-5:3), to avoid further misuse.

Withholding the Red Heifer

To those withholding a red heifer, potentially the Temple Institute, correction is due. Delaying due to lack of consensus, as Berkowitz reports: “They just want to make sure that when they do make the final decision… there’s not going to be division,” overlooks the mitzvah’s urgency. Mishnah Parah 3:5 lists nine historical heifers, urging fulfillment despite challenges. The Rambam in Hilchot Parah Adumah 1:1 stresses preparation as foundational for purity. Withholding perpetuates communal impurity, contrary to the prophetic call for restoration (יְחֶזְקֵאל ל”ו:כ”ה, Yechezkel 36:25, Ezekiel 36:25). Move forward under halakhic authorities grounded in primary sources, not distant opinions. Learn the halakhah as slack deviations can be catastrophic as David learned during transporting the Ark. Let’s not learn this after the fact.

In conclusion, adherence to rock-solid sources, Mishnah, Talmud, Rambam, confirms the video’s claims lack support. Let us advance with integrity, guided by halakhah, toward redemption.

May the Almighty, in His infinite mercy, grant us the merit to witness the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash in our time, restoring purity and sanctity to Yerushalayim. As we strive to uphold the mitzvot with diligence and devotion, may we be inscribed for blessing, and may the words of the prophets be fulfilled swiftly: “And I will bring them to My holy mountain, and I will cause them to rejoice in My house of prayer” (Yeshayahu 56:7). Next year in Yerushalayim rebuilt. Amen.

Original Debate Video

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)