[Avodah] Parshas Parah

[Joshua Meisner]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale at gmail.com> wrote:
>  What I'm curious about: It says of Parshat Parah "zocher", and the
>  Gemara says that zocher means read it from a Sefer Torah.
>  But if so, we have five other zochers in the Torah (see your Artscroll
>  siddur after Shacharit - page 176f in the Nusach Ashkenaz), but in
>  only two of the six zochers do we read anything from a Sefer Torah.

Perhaps you're conflating two drashos on Megillah 18a, one of which
states that "Zachor es asher asah l'cha Amalek" must mean an oral
commemmoration, being that "Lo Tishkach" already prohibits the inverse
of a mental commemoration[1] and the other of which states that just
like Zachor must be read from a scroll b/c of "K'sov zos zikaron
ba-sefer", so, too, must Megillas Esther be read from a scroll, due to
a gezeira shava through "V'hayamim ha-eileh nizkarim"?

If so, the gemara's limud implies that any other mention of the word
Zachor - ma'amad Har Sinai, Miriam, etc. - can be b'leiv, and
certainly we can't extrapolate from the two zechiros of the gezeira
shava to other zechiros to require a reading from a scroll.

>  4) Zachor, al tishkach, et asher hiktzafta et hashem elokecha bamidbar
>  (i.e. cheit ha-egel) - Dev 9:7
>  We have parshat parah from a scroll

Being that MB 685:16 and other poskim reject the Magen Avraham's
chiddush that one can be yotzei the mitzvah of Zechiras Amalek by
hearing the leining of "Vayavo Amalek", it seems dubious to say that
P' Parah is a kiyyum of Zechiras HaEigel.

AhS OCh 685:7, after noting that gedolei ha-acharonim rejected the
shita that Parah is d'oraissa[2],suggests nonetheless that a potential
remez of the obligation could be from the two mentions of "chukas
olam" in the parsha, one of which is expounded in Sifrei to teach that
the mitzvah is noheges l'doros and the other of which can therefore be
an allusion to a chiyuv to read the parsha.

Joshua Meisner


[1] I don't know why the gemara doesn't simply say that Zachor comes
to add an asei in addition to the lav, like it does on numerous
occasions in Sefer Vayikra, but perhaps having two distinct meanings
is preferred to a having a two-dimensional meaning?

[2]MB says similarly.  Be'er HaGolah cites the source of the yesh
omrim cited by the Mechaber as being Tosfos on Brachos 13, but in DH
B'Lashon on 13a, he only mentions P' Zachor, so what's the Mechaber's
source for saying that P' Parah is d'oraissa?