Literally, “the ashes of the burning of the sin.” This indicates that the ashes of the burnt heifer were regarded as having in some respects the virtues of a sin offering. Nothing is said as to the quantity of ashes required. Probably a very small amount was deemed sufficient.

 As to the nature and purpose of the “purification” (vs. 9, 17) that was accomplished by the sprinkling of the “water of separation [from uncleanness]” (vs. 9, 21), two questions may be asked:

 (1) What was the nature of the “sin” (vs. 9, 17) or “uncleanness” (v. 13) thus purified?

 (2) What was the nature of the act of “purification”?

 1. The water was “a purification for sin” (vs. 9, 17) contracted by touching a dead person or dead unclean animal, or any part thereof (vs. 11-13), or by entering a house where death had occurred, or by touching a grave (vs. 14-16), whether intentionally or by accident. Contact with death was obviously not an infraction of the moral but of the ceremonial code; yet it is referred to as “sin.” In what sense is the word “sin” thus used?

 The word here translated “sin” is chaṭṭa’th, which means literally “a misstep,” “a slip of the foot.” Thus, according to Prov. 13:6, “sin overthrows the wicked” (RSV), that is, it trips him up. In the KJV Prov. 19:2 reads in part, “he that hasteth with his feet sinneth,” but the RSV, “he who makes haste with his feet misses his way,” that is, he wanders from it. Chaṭṭa’th also means “blame.” In Gen. 43:9 Judah offered to “bear the blame for ever,” literally, “be a sinner forever,” should he return without Benjamin. He purposed to do his best, but if he failed he would “bear the blame,” literally, the “sin,” of it.

 2. The ceremonial nature of the purification effected by the “water of separation” is evident from its use to “purify” material objects (Num. 31:22, 23). In the case of death the tent itself where the man had died and its contents became unclean and must be purified (ch. 19:14-17). This was certainly not from any moral defilement attaching to them, but solely from ceremonial defilement. Another evidence of the ceremonial nature of the cleansing effected is the fact that after the sprinkling of the water the person still remained “unclean” till nightfall, or even for days afterward (vs. 10-12, 19). The matter of uncleanness, and the purification accomplished by means of the red heifer, took on a moral aspect only when a person failed to obey the provisions ordained by God in connection therewith. Thus, to fail to make use of the “water of separation” as God had instructed, under circumstances where its use was prescribed, was a grievous offense that shut a man out from the mercy of God (vs. 13, 20).

 Literally, “water of lives,” or living water (see Lev. 14:5; John 4:10).