And the Lord spoke unto Moses, &c.— The sudden death of so many Israelites, who dropped by the late plague, chap. Numbers 16:46; Numbers 16:49 had put a great number of their friends and relations into a state of legal uncleanness, which made them incapable of approaching the tabernacle for divine worship. To free them, therefore, from the fear of perishing in their uncleanness, ch. Numbers 17:12-13 a way is here shewn them, how to be purified from the greatest legal pollution, and so made capable of being again admitted to the public worship. It is thought by some, that this ordinance of the red heifer had been before established, though not till now described; see ch. Numbers 8:7 wherefore, some would read, This is the ordinance which the Lord had commanded, 1. The first thing peculiar in this institution, is the sex of the sacrifice, a heifer: whereas, in other cases, the male is generally preferred: the most plausible reason for which, is that given by Dr. Spencer; who, according to his usual system, holds, that this was done in opposition to the Egyptian superstition. The veneration of that people for cows is universally known: the ancient writers in general speak of it; and Porphyry in particular says, that they would sooner have eaten human flesh, than that of cows. To expose this folly of the Egyptians in the eyes of the Israelites, Moses by divine direction (this writer supposes) appoints one solemn institution, wherein a heifer is the victim; that, by degrading these animals to a level with the rest of the brute creation, he might strip them of their imaginary divinity, and, by degrees, cure the Israelites of their attachment to this superstition. 2. This heifer is appointed to be red, because (Dr. Spencer continues to observe) it had been an established custom among the Egyptians, to offer bullocks of a red colour to their god Typhon, from an opinion that this deity of their's was of a red colour. Accordingly, Plutarch tells us of the Egyptians, that the bullocks which they chose for sacrifice were red, in the observance of which they were so nice, that if the animal had but one hair black or white, it was thought profane; see Bishop Squire's translation of Plutarch's Is. and Os. And, accordingly, some have supposed that the words, without spot, in the text, refer to the colour of the heifer, a heifer perfectly red, without one spot of any other colour. In this sense Spencer, following most of the Jewish rabbis, understands it. Josephus, who was himself a priest, and so must have been well acquainted with the ceremonies of his religion, gives this interpretation; Antiq. lib. 4: cap. 4. And we are told, that the Jews were so scrupulous in this particular, that if the heifer had but two hairs black or white, it was not qualified, at least unless those hairs were pulled out. 3. This heifer, like all the other sacrifices, was to be without blemish: wherein is no blemish; to which some commentators think the words without spot refer, as being the most common and natural interpretation. 4. Another particular is specified of the heifer: it was to be one, upon which never came yoke; possibly to meet the common notion, that those animals which had borne the yoke, and had been employed by men in servile works, were less fit for being offered to the Deity. So the Egyptians thought: and so, after them, the Greeks and Romans, as the learned Bochart has shewn at large, Hieroz. Part I. lib. ii. c. 33. Thus Diomede, in Homer, promises that he will sacrifice to Pallas,
——A youthful steer Untam'd, unconscious of the galling yoke. POPE. Iliad. x. v. 348.
And Virgil, describing the sacrifices of Aristaeus, says, that he offered
——Four fair heifers, yet in yoke untried. DRYD. Geor. iv. v. 781.
See Spencer, vol. i. p. 482. and Jablonski Pantheon. lib. v. c. 2.