Moshe’s mistake was regarding the statute of the Chatas. He thought that just as the waters of sprinkling purify even though they do not surround the entire vessel, so too the Mei Chatas could remove the absorbed taste of giulei akum, the non-kosher absorption in utensils from non-Jews. This was the mistake. About this, Elazar said, “Ach — only…” The word “ach” is a term of limitation, meaning that sprinkling is effective only for impurity, but not for the absorbed taste of giulei akum.
On Rashi’s words (31:21), “Elazar the Kohen said…” Rashi explains: “Because Moshe came to anger, he came to error, and the laws of giulei akum were hidden from him.” And on the words “as Hashem commanded,” Rashi says: “He attributed the ruling to his teacher.”
This needs to be understood: Seemingly, the word “error” does not apply when a law becomes hidden from someone and he forgets it. That is not an error, but forgetfulness. Even if we say that the mistake was that Moshe told them the utensils needed sprinkling and nothing more, meaning that he did not tell them the laws of giulei akum, how can the omission of a law regarding kashering be called an error in the laws of impurity?
Regarding the words “as Hashem commanded,” this also needs explanation. The words “This is the statute of the Torah that Hashem commanded” seem, in the simple meaning, to refer to the sprinkling that Moshe had mentioned earlier. The laws of giulei akum are not a “statute” that is beyond reason. Rather, “statute” refers to the sprinkling on the third and seventh days. If so, how does Rashi explain that “This is the statute of the Torah that Hashem commanded” refers to “Only the gold…” — the laws of giulei akum?
The explanation is: Elazar did not say only, “This is the statute of the Torah that Hashem commanded,” which had already been said to Moshe earlier. He added the words “to Moshe,” indicating that he wanted to connect the matter of giulei akum to Moshe as well. Giulei akum is part of “the statute of the Torah,” because Moshe’s mistake concerned the statute of the Chatas. Moshe thought that just as the waters of sprinkling purify even though they do not surround the entire vessel, so too the Mei Chatas could remove the absorbed taste of giulei akum. This was the mistake. About this, Elazar said, “Ach — only…” The word “ach” is a term of limitation, meaning that sprinkling is effective only for impurity, but not for the absorbed taste of giulei akum.
The inner Chasidic explanation is as follows: Giulei akum is absorbed into the inside of the vessel, and therefore the vessel must be kashered in order to remove what has been absorbed. Impurity, by contrast, is a makif, an encompassing force. Therefore, purification from impurity is also through immersion, which is an encompassing act; through immersion, no visible change is seen in the person’s body.
The impurity of a corpse is an even higher level of makif, beyond the grasp of reason entirely, since the corpse itself is pure. Therefore, its purification is through the sprinkling of Mei Chatas, even with only two or three drops. Since this concerns a makif, what matters is the general change from impurity to purity, and that is not measured by quantity.
This is why Moshe, the shushvina d’malka — the attendant of the King — thought that through awakening the makifim of holiness, there would automatically be a change in the inner powers as well. Elazar, however, the shushvina d’matronisa — the attendant of the Queen — whose role is to elevate the Jewish people from below upward, said that makif powers are not enough. There must also be work within the inner powers themselves.