נקום נקמת, “wreak vengeance!” the plain text appears to charge Moses personally with having to wreak this vengeance. However, seeing that he had been raised in Midian and had been saved from Pharaoh’s vengeance during all his years there, it would not have been moral for him to do this himself, just as he did not strike the river Nile during the plagues, as that river, i.e. its banks, had helped to save his life when he was an infant. He sent delegates as we read in verse 6, where the Torah quotes Moses as dispatching the 12000 soldiers to conduct the punitive campaign. [all righteous men who had not been involved in the shameful episode at Shittim, Ed.]

לתת נקמת ה' במדין, “to execute the Lord’s vengeance against Midian. It is peculiar to read this, as G-d’s instructions had been to execute the Children of Israel’s vengeance against Midian. (verse 2) What made Moses change the venue?We must imagine that Moses, upon hearing the instructions, had said to G-d: “the vengeance is really Yours o Lord, as the only reason why the Canaanites, Midianites, etc hate us, is on account of You.” (B’chor shor). This is why the Israelites went to war against the Midianites, who were not part of the Moabites whose measure of guilt had not yet made them candidates for destruction by G-d. The Midianites had meddled in matters that did not concern them, and had no reason to fear the Israelites as their geographic location did not block Israel’s access to the Land of Canaan. The prophet Bileam had already stated that though he could foresee the complete collapse of Moav, he saw it as occurring in the distant future. [700 800 years later the Israelites were still involved in wars against Moav during the time of Elijah and Elisha. Ed.] At any rate, the Moabites had several reasons to fear the aggression of the Israelites so that they could be excused for acting in a hostile manner against them. One of their complaints was that the Israelites had actually conquered land that used to belong to Moav when they defeated King Sichon of the Canaanites, who conquered those lands previously from the Moabites. The Israelites had not returned it to Moav, but had settled it.

לכל מטות ישראל, “of each of the tribes of Israel.” This included even the tribe of Levi. (Compare both Sifri and Rashi) Seeing that the Midianites had had evil intentions also against the tribe of Levi, there was no reason why that tribe should not participate in this punitive campaign.

וימסרו מאלפי ישראל, “there were ‘delivered’ from the thousands of Israelite men of military age, etc.” These men were not volunteers but conscripts as Rashi has explained. G-d had told Moses to select these conscripts by means of lots. (Bamidbar Rabbah 22,3.)

על חלליהם, “with their other slain comrades;” the word על here means: “with,” as for instance in Leviticus 25,31. (Compare what our author explains on that verse). Compare also על עולות התמיד in Numbers 28,15, as well as Exodus 35,20 האנשים על הנשים, “the men with the women,” and numerous other examples.

ואת בלעם, “and Bileam;” after Bileam had returned from Moav to Aram Naharayim, his home base, he traveled toMidian in order to collect a fee from the elders of Midian who had been in the first delegation Balak had sent to him to ask him to curse the Israelites. When he heard that a great plague had befallen the Israelites, he wanted to cash in on this, claiming that he had been the instrument that brought this about, by having suggested that the Moabite women seduce their males into promiscuity by sleeping with their women. (Ibn Ezra) An alternate interpretation explaining Bileam’s sudden presence amongst the Midianites: when he had explained to the Moabites that the reason that he was unable to curse these people effectively was because they had been so loyal to their G-d and His Torah, (Numbers 23,21) the Moabites took the hint and succeeded to lead them into sin. Having succeeded in this, they sent Bileam another invitation stressing that now he could curse them effectively. He followed their advice and was killed as a result.

ויצאו משה ואלעזר הכהן, “Moses and the High Priest Elazar went out to welcome back the soldiers (before they reached the camp);”they could not admit them to the camp because having killed human beings they had all become ritually impure and required seven days of purification.

כל נקבה, “any female;”(among the prisoners taken); this is not the only time when the word כל, does not mean: “each” or “all;” we have other examples such as in Exodus 20,10: לא תעשה כל מלאכה, ”do not perform any menial work;” or Exodus 22,21: כל אלמנה ויתום, “any widow or orphan.” There are quite a few more examples that could be cited.

בדבר בלעם למסור מעל, “to break faith (with G-d) through Bileam’s counsel;” he had taught these women how to lead the Israelites into grievous sin. (see verse 18 for details)

!וכל אשה יודעת איש למשכב זכר הרוגו, “and kill any woman that has known a man by having carnal relations with him!”Rashi questions why the Torah had to repeat the command: “kill” in this verse. He bases himself on Sifri, item 157, where it is explained that without this repetition we might have misunderstood due to the Torah also having stated that certain categories of females were allowed to live. [In other words, we would not have known if to understand the word: כל as “each” or as “any.”] The repetition makes it clear that the meaning is: “any.”An alternate explanation for why the word: הרוגו, “Kill!” had to be repeated at the end of this verse. If any woman old enough had to be killed even though she was still a virgin, surely a woman who had already experienced carnal relations would have had to be killed also! We have a rule that logic is not sufficient to allow us to apply a penalty to someone guilty of such. Therefore the Torah had to spell out that such women had to be killed, and we could not simply use our logic to act upon in such a case. If you were to reason that the Torah could have avoided using this word at the beginning of the verse and written as follows: 'ועתה כל זכר וכל אשה יודעת איש וגו, “and therefore now, every male and every woman who has had carnal knowledge of a man, etc.,” the problem we would have had if the Torah had written this would be that we might have thought that as long as a minor male, not yet capable of indulging his libido, would not become liable to death until he had done so. We would have to deliberately present him with this opportunity in order to justify executing him and his partner. Considering all this, the Torah wrote: ועתה הרגו כל זכר בטף, “therefore kill now every male amongst the children,” i.e. immediately, without waiting, and kill every female if examination proves that she is no longer a virgin, seeing that this is proof that she had carnal knowledge of a male.

וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו איש וגו, “but any children among the women who have not had carnal knowledge, etc.” you shall let live for your benefit. This formulation prompted Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai to state that a female convert who has not attained the age of three years and a day, is fit to marry a priest. [as she could not have been contaminated through carnal intercourse] (Sifri on this verse)

ואתם חנו חוץ למחנה, “as for you, meanwhile make camp outside the camp of the Israelites;” even though someone contaminated through contact with a corpse is not even permitted to stay within the camp of the ordinary Israelites but even in the area allocated to the Levites, these soldiers did not want to avail themselves of this rule. They were afraid that through physical contact they might cause other people to become ritually impure. There were so many people in the camp that they were unable to not inadvertently touch some of them. As their ritual status was the one called av hatumah, primary source of ritual impurity, this meant that people or vessels touching them would immediately contract a secondary level of impurity at least.

תתחטאו, “become purified” Rashi explains that the means of purification was the same as if they had become contaminated by contact with a Jewish corpse, although there are opinions that a gentile corpse does not confer ritual impurity on a Jew. This opinion refers only to impurity conferred by being in the same covered airspace with the corpse. All authorities agree that physical contact with the corpse of a gentile does confer ritual impurity on that Jew. The disagreement revolves around the word אדם, whether it could be applied to gentiles. (Compare Ezekiel 34,31) The situations in which this type of ritual impurity occurs are spelled out in Numbers 19,16 as being: “physical contact with someone slain by the sword, death by natural causes, or contact with a grave or human bone,” as requiring a purification period of seven consecutive days. Seeing that this verse does not mention being in the same tent as the dead body or limb, as did verse 14 there, the fact that separate verses are used, supports the opinion that verse 16 applies also to gentile corpses.

ביום השלישי וביום השביעי “on the third day and the seventh day;” The Torah here stresses the ritual to be performed while purifying themselves when unclean due to having killed Midianites, although it did not do so when the Israelite soldiers killed the members of the Canaanite nations during the war of conquest under the leadership of Joshua. The reason is that only 12000 soldiers were involved in the campaign against the Midianites, whereas the entire male population was involved in the war of conquest, and we know from the Talmud that when the majority of the people are in a state of ritual uncleanness due to contact with corpses, the restrictions applying to people in such a condition are waived. [During wartime even the most repugnant gentile foods etc., are permitted to be eaten by the soldiers when this ensures that they have sufficient nourishment.] The same was true even for the civilian population immediately after the conquest of the land of Canaan, as the Torah refers to the people having been given “houses fully stocked with the necessities of life,” i.e. unless they were allowed to use them, why would the Torah describe them as a “gift” from G-d? (Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 17, based on Deuteronomy 6,11.) In contrast to the wars of conquest in Canaan, the 12000 soldiers conducting the punitive expedition against Midian, campaign which was primarily a religious war, were not allowed to take advantage of what would be permitted during the wars of conquest for the whole nation. They remained bound by all the laws governing personal purity, and this is why they had to undergo the purification rites on the third and seventh day as indicated here. The fact that they did not sustain a single casualty during that campaign is evidence of the different nature of that campaign. Moreover, the cause of the campaign had been the fact that meant thousands of Israelites had contaminated themselves spiritually, by worshipping the Baal Peor. (Numbers 25,3). The soldiers from the punitive campaign undergoing a purification ritual therefore also had a symbolic significance, seeing that not every soldier may have been involved in killing a Midianite. Therefore, even if there was only a doubt about their having touched a Midianite corpse, the Torah decreed the purification process.

וכל בגד, “and any garment;” as that garment might have touched a Midianite corpse.

ויאמר אלעזר הכהן, “the High Priest Elazar said:” the reason that it was Elazar who issued the instructions following concerning how to purify the loot, was that it had been he who had prepared the first red heifer whose ashes would be the instrument that made the purification process possible. (Numbers 19,3) Although Moses had instructed him in these procedures, of course, and Elazar had quoted him, he was punished for preempting Moses in revealing what the procedures were to be taken now. The punishment was that we do not find that Joshua again required the services of the High Priest Elazar, although when he had been appointed the Torah had written that “he will stand before Elazar the High Priest,” (Numbers 26,21) suggesting that the latter outranked Joshua. (Talmud tractate Eyruvin, folio 63)

זאת חקת התורה, “this is the statute of the Torah;” he referred to what Moses had told him in verse 19, that anyone who had killed someone had to undergo the purification rites. The details had all been spelled out in Numbers chapter 19 commencing with verse 13 when the details of the red heifer are discussed.

,וטהר, אך במי נדה יתחטא. “it will become pure, but must still be purified further with the water of sprinkling, called: mey niddah. Rabba bar Avuhi in the Talmud tractate Avodah Zarah folio 75, states that the language of the Torah does not only refer to used utensils, if they had not been used for 12 months, but even for new vessels not produced by Jews if these are meant to be used in the consumption of food or preparation of food. The manner of purifying same is less demanding than the purification of human beings who had been in contact with dead bodies or body parts. When Rabbi Yirmiyah heard of the statement of Rabbi Rabbah, he added that his rule applies only to vessels that have been acquired (purchased or looted) and had been handled by Israelites. If they had only been borrowed temporarily they do not require such purification. Vessels that are made of earthenware cannot be purified unless first broken up when they can be reconstituted by having the shards put in a kiln after treatment by the artisan. Mar bar rav Ashi, is on record as telling people that his father was in the habit of using vessels made from silver that he had received from gentiles as security of loans extended to them. He drank from these vessels (after immersing them in a ritual bath only without submitting them to further purification first). His son was not sure if he did so because he considered them as a loan to him. Or, these vessels were not used to contain matters which had been heated first, such as soup, etc, in which case they would have required a higher degree of purification. (boiling water being poured over them, or if they were small enough, immersing them in boiling water). According to Rashi, Mar bar Rav Ashi’s father was convinced that the borrower who had left this silver vessel with him as security would never demand it back and repay the loan, so that he considered it as his, else he would not have been allowed it as it was given to him for safekeeping. In effect, he had bought it and his payment had been the money he “loaned” to the previous owner.

וכבסתם בגדיכם, “and you have to wash your garments.” It goes without saying that you also have to wash your bodies. We have another example of a similar construction in Exodus 19,10 when the Jewish people are instructed by Moses in the name of the Lord to wash their garments, וכבסו שמלותם, as part of sanctifying themselves in advance of the revelation at Mount Sinai. Another example of this is found in Numbers 19,10, where the man handling the procedure involving the red heifer is required to wash his garments. [“Washing” in all of these instances is not what we call “laundering,” but is a reference for immersion in a ritual bath. Ed.]

מאת אנשי המלחמה, אחד נפש מחמש המאות, “one item in each five hundred, be it a person or chattel or animal.” Seeing that the warriors had born the brunt of the burden of this campaign, their “tithe” for the Lord is relatively much smaller in terms of the percentage they must give to the Temple treasury. It would be handed over to the High Priest Elazar. (verse 29)

אחד אחוז מן החמשים ונתתה אותם ללוים, (from the half share of the other Israelites) “you shall withhold one in every fifty (humans, cattle, and chattels) and give them to the Levites.” When the Levites received 10 shares out of every thousand, the priests took for themselves one share. [Rabbi Chavell points out that our author appears to have made a miscalculation here. I will not get involved in this. Ed.]

מן הבקר ומן החמורים ומן הצאן, “from the herds, the donkeys and the flocks.” Why were the camels not mentioned, seeing that there must have been very many of them? In the war against Midian under Gideon (Judges 6,51) the author tells us that the number of camels captured were too many to bother counting. Apparently, only these animals were counted as qualifying for the Temple treasury which were ritually pure, or which the Torah had accorded a special status such as donkeys, whose first born males had to be redeemed. (Exodus chapter 13,15) We may assume that the camels were included in when the Torah wrote: ממל הבהמה, from all of the livestock in our verse.

יתר הבז, “the excess of the loot;” this refers to what the soldiers had consumed prior to returning to camp.

ולא נפקד ממנו איש, “and not one of us who had been counted is unaccounted for.” The remarkable thing here was that we have a rule that a headcount is liable to result in a plague, and that there is no remedy against this. Our sages therefore do not understand the word נפקד here in the conventional sense, but they translate it to mean that none of the 12000 soldiers in this campaign had become guilty of a personal sin, which might have resulted in Satan having an excuse to kill him. (Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 64)

ונקרב את קרבן ה', לכפר על נפשותינו, ”we have broughtthe Lord’s offering......to make atonement for our souls.” Wehad made this commitment already before having been counted in order to protect us against the potential harm that might befall us on account of the count. This is why we have now brought it to the Tabernacle. We find confirmation for this interpretation in Exodus 30,16: ולקחת את כסף הכפויים ונתת אותו על עבודת אהל מועד, “and you shall take (accept) the atonement money from the Children of Israel and shall appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting;”

ונקרב את קרבן ה, Rashi adds that they meant that even if they had withstood the temptation to commit a sin, they had not been free from the temptation to do so, and they meant to atone for this by this offering. If you were to counter that the Torah had actually condoned sleeping with prisoners of war due to giving in to their physical allure, (Deuteronomy chapter 21) so what sin or temptation to sin did these soldiers talk about? We would have to refer to the Jerusalem Talmud who states that chapter 21 of Deuteronomy only condones relations with a captured female after the conquest has been completed, not during the war.

כל כלי מעשה, “even jewelry that had been made from such gold.”