AVENGE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL OF THE MIDIANITES; AFTERWARD SHALT THOU BE GATHERED UNTO THY PEOPLE. It was decreed upon our teacher Moses not to cross over the Jordan, but on the other [eastern] side of the Jordan he fulfilled all the commandments [that were necessary] for Israel. Thus he conquered the two great Amorite kings, and divided their land up as an inheritance [amongst the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Menasheh], and it was he who was worthy of executing vengeance upon the enemies of the Eternal, leaving Joshua only the commandment of [conquering and dividing] the Land. Furthermore [this commandment was given to Moses because] the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him honor so that the righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance,⁵⁹ 25:1 and Pinchas 25:11) the triumph of right over evil was thus a source of rejoicing to the righteous one [Moses]. this being the meaning of afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses showed honor to Phinehas⁶⁰ because he had begun the meritorious task [of punishing the Midianites, by killing Cozbi]⁶¹ and it was up to him to finish it, and therefore he appointed him the anointed priest for this war.⁶² It was not fitting that Eleazar should go [as the anointed priest of the war], because he was the High Priest [after the death of Aaron].⁶³

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Psalms 58:11 — Since the Midianites had enticed the people of Israel to immorality and the worship of Baal-peor (see Ramban above Balak ⁶⁰ Verse 6. ⁶¹ Above, 25:15. ⁶² See Deuteronomy 20:2. ⁶³ Above, 20:28 — The position of the anointed priest of the war was always distinct from that of the High Priest (see Rambam, Hilchoth Klei Hamikdash, Chapter 3). Hence “it was not fitting,” as Ramban expresses it, that Eleazar the High Priest should go with the army and function in the role of the anointed priest of the war.

AND MOSES SENT THEM, A THOUSAND OF EVERY TRIBE. He did not send all the members of the army there, although the Midianites were a large people, and their cities were fortified, and very large.⁶⁴, 13:28. The reason for this is that those who had sinned with the Moabite women were many, and they were not fit *to execute the vengeance of the Eternal;*⁶⁵ therefore they chose those men who were known amongst their tribes as righteous men.⁶⁶ Now Moses did not command them what to do, but merely told them to execute the vengeance of the Eternal on Midian,⁶⁵ and he thought that they would let none of them remain or escape,⁶⁷ but [would execute the vengeance of the Eternal] like the vengeance [they were commanded] in connection with Amalek or the vengeance [they were commanded] in connection with the seven nations [of the land of Canaan]. And therefore when Moses saw that they had spared the women and children and the cattle, he was angry about [the fact that they had left alive] the women who had had sexual intercourse, because the officers of the army should have killed them as the very first thing, both as execution of the vengeance [which they were now commanded to do], and in performance of the general law of the Torah [that a living thing which causes a man to sin must be killed, as it is said], and ye shall slay the beast.⁶⁸ And when he saw that the people wanted [to keep] the spoil, he remitted [and allowed them to keep] the female children⁶⁹ and the spoil.⁷⁰, Verse 20. It is also possible to explain that Moses was [only] commanded to Harass the Midianites, and Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites,⁷¹ [but was not commanded to destroy them all like Amalek and the seven nations]. Therefore he sent only a small contingent [twelve thousand men] to strike at the unwalled towns⁷² and fell every good tree, and stop all fountains of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones⁷³ as spoilers usually do, and he did not give them any specific commands except that they should execute whatever vengeance they were able to do — and G-d, blessed be He, Who controls [the course of all] battles, gave the Midianites and their [five] kings and cities into their hands. Therefore Moses was only angry about [their sparing] the women who had had sexual intercourse, and [he was] not angry about anything else,⁷⁴ as a form of vengeance. Hence we understand why he was not angry about their sparing the children and spoil, but only about their sparing the grown-up women who had caused the sin. and his command [to kill] the male children⁷⁵ was an [additional measure of] retributive punishment. Now Moses was wroth with the officers of the host⁷⁶ but showed honor to Phinehas [by not criticizing him, too], because G-d had given unto him His covenant of peace.⁷⁷ And in the Sifre we are taught:⁷⁸ 157. “Phinehas said to Moses: As you have commanded us, so have we done.” But I do not know what this statement means, since according to the Scriptural verses [here] Moses did not command them anything specific, for had he commanded them something which [as Phinehas said] they fulfilled, how could he [Moses] have been angry with them? [We cannot say that he was angry because they did not do everything that he told them to,] because had he commanded them, Heaven forbid that [we say that] Phinehas would transgress his command! Saul lost his kingdom on account of such disobedience!⁷⁹ But the [explanation of the matter] is as I have said, that Moses [merely] commanded them to execute the vengeance of the Eternal on Midian,⁶⁵ and Phinehas told him: “We have executed great vengeance on them.” It is also possible to explain that Phinehas told Moses: “Just as you charged us with the law of the Torah given at Mount Sinai, namely, When thou shalt besiege a city etc.⁸⁰. It was this law which was Phinehas’ defense. so have we done to them.” And Moses was angry about [their sparing] the adult women, because, Behold, these caused the children of Israel etc.,⁸¹ and he added [the command to kill] every male among the little ones⁷⁵ in order to complete the retribution.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ Ibid. ⁶⁵ Verse 3. ⁶⁶ See Deuteronomy 1:13. ⁶⁵ Verse 3. ⁶⁷ Joshua 8:22. ⁶⁸ Leviticus 20:15. ⁶⁹ Further, Verse 18. ⁷⁰ Ibid. ⁷¹ Above, 25:17, and Verse 2 of this Chapter. ⁷² Deuteronomy 3:5. ⁷³ II Kings 3:19. ⁷⁴ Thus, according to this second explanation, Moses originally did not command them to destroy everything, but only to harass the Midianites ⁷⁵ Verse 17. ⁷⁶ Verse 14. ⁷⁷ Above, 25:12. ⁷⁸ Sifre, Matoth ⁷⁹ I Samuel 13:14. ⁶⁵ Verse 3. ⁸⁰ Deuteronomy 20:19. In the context of Ramban’s remarks here, it would seem that the reference is to Verses 10-14 ibid: When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it … but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle … thou shalt take ⁸¹ Verse 16. ⁷⁵ Verse 17.

WHOSOEVER HATH KILLED ANY PERSON, AND WHOSOEVER HATH TOUCHED ANY SLAIN, [PURIFY YOURSELVES ON THE THIRD DAY AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY]. “Rabbi Meir says: Scripture is speaking about someone who killed with an object which is susceptible of impurity, and the verse [here] teaches you that the object [i.e., the weapon] renders the person impure through [indirect] contact with the corpse as if he had touched the corpse itself.⁸², Note 40. I might think that even if he shot an arrow at him and killed him [the same law applies]; Scripture therefore says, and whosoever hath killed any person [and whosoever hath touched any slain].⁸³ Thus it compares a person who kills to a person who touches. Just as he who touches [is rendered impure] by virtue of that contact [with the corpse], so is the person who kills [rendered impure] by virtue of his contact [with the corpse, effected through the weapon he holds in his hand, which contact is non-existent when he shoots an arrow and kills him].” Thus far is the language of Rashi. But his words are not clear to me. For if he killed with an object which is susceptible to impurity but can be [made pure] by immersion,⁸⁴ then the person touching it does not contract the seven-day period of impurity, nor does he require the sprinkling [of the waters of purification], since the object [with which he killed] becomes “a father of impurity,”⁸⁵, Note 40, for an explanation of this subject. and the person who becomes impure through it, becomes a “first degree of impurity” [who is only required to immerse himself in a ritual pool and he becomes pure the evening of that same day; and since the verse here requires a seven-day period of impurity, it cannot be referring to such a case]. And if [he killed him] with a metal instrument, we have already been taught⁸⁶ that a sword [or any metal object with which a person is killed] is exactly the same degree of impurity as the dead person himself,⁸², Note 40. and therefore conveys a seven-days’ impurity [to anyone who touches it, so there is no need for our verse to repeat this principle]. And if the Rabbi [Rashi] is of the opinion that since he [the killer] touched the instrument whilst it was itself still in contact with the corpse [then even if it was not a metal object] it renders him impure for a seven-day period just as [if he had touched] the corpse itself — such [conveyance of a stricter degree of] impurity through [indirect] contact is only a law of the Rabbis when the contact is that of objects with a corpse, as is explained in Tractate Neziruth, Chapter Shloshah Minim.⁸⁷ verses here cannot be speaking of such a case. Hence Rashi’s comment “that the verse [here] teaches you that the object renders the person impure through contact etc.” cannot be the correct explanation of this verse. But the language of the Rabbis in the Sifre is as follows:⁸⁸ 127. “Rabbi Meir says: Scripture is speaking about someone who killed with an object which is susceptible to impurity, and [teaches us that] it conveys impurity by moving [the corpse, as will be explained further on]. Or I might think that even if he shot an arrow at him and killed him [the same law applies]; Scripture therefore says etc.”⁸⁹. Thus it compares etc. “[as quoted by Ramban from Rashi’s commentary]. And the meaning of [this Sifre] is that Rabbi Meir came to deduce from here [the principle] that a human corpse conveys impurity when carried. Thus if he killed him with a walking-stick or a spear, even if it did not consist of metal, and he was “carried,” [i.e., the slain person was moved] through them,⁹⁰ — “the impurity caused by shaking” an impure object [such as n’veilah, or a human corpse] so as to move it from its place. Such movement, even if done in an indirect manner, is sufficient to convey impurity, just as if it had been carried directly. at the time of death, the corpse conveys impurity of seven-days’ duration to the person who “carried” [i.e., moved] it. And when [using the phrase] “an object which is susceptible to impurity,” Rabbi Meir was not referring to a vessel which forms a receptacle [and is therefore susceptible to impurity] but to an object through which the person receives impurity [directly] from the corpse itself,⁹¹ forming a receptacle but to an object through which the person becomes impure from the corpse itself by shifting or shaking it, even if the person did not touch or carry the corpse at all, since causing an impure object to move or to shake is subject to the same law as carrying it. This interpretation of Rabbi Meir’s meaning is made clear by the first part of the Beraitha, which Ramban now brings, and which Rashi did not quote. Ramban in conclusion proceeds to explain that although the anonymous opinion in the first part of the Beraitha agrees with Rabbi Meir on the main principle referred to here, that causing a corpse to move also conveys impurity of seven-days’ duration — they disagree on the process of reasoning which establishes this principle, as Ramban explains. such as by “carrying” [i.e., moving it]. And the beginning of this Beraitha there [in the Sifre] states as follows:⁸⁸ 127. “Whence do we know that it [a corpse] conveys impurity by shaking it? You make use of a *kal vachomer:*⁹² argument]. See Ramban, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208. If a dead animal that conveys a non-stringent form of impurity [since it conveys impurity only until the evening of the same day] nonetheless conveys impurity by being moved, is it not logical that a human corpse that conveys a stringent form of impurity [i.e., an impurity of seven-days’ duration] should convey impurity by being moved! But if so [you might argue] that just as there, the impurity conveyed [by moving the dead animal] is only until the evening, so here also [in the case of the human corpse], the impurity conveyed [by moving or shaking it] is only until the evening [of that day ! You must say that this cannot be so. Rather,] you must say that the law of moving it is the same as touching it. Where touching [the source of impurity] renders one impure for a seven-days’ duration [as does touching a corpse], so also does moving it render one impure for a seven-days’ duration, and where touching renders one only impure until the evening [as does touching a dead animal], moving it also renders one impure only until the evening. Rabbi Meir says etc.” From here then, the meaning of the Beraitha becomes apparent, as we have explained it above:⁹¹ forming a receptacle but to an object through which the person becomes impure from the corpse itself by shifting or shaking it, even if the person did not touch or carry the corpse at all, since causing an impure object to move or to shake is subject to the same law as carrying it. This interpretation of Rabbi Meir’s meaning is made clear by the first part of the Beraitha, which Ramban now brings, and which Rashi did not quote. Ramban in conclusion proceeds to explain that although the anonymous opinion in the first part of the Beraitha agrees with Rabbi Meir on the main principle referred to here, that causing a corpse to move also conveys impurity of seven-days’ duration — they disagree on the process of reasoning which establishes this principle, as Ramban explains. Thus the First Sage [i.e., the anonymous Sage of the first part of the Sifre] deduced from a kal vachomer⁹² argument]. See Ramban, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208. the principle that carrying [or moving] a corpse [without touching it] conveys impurity even for a seven-days’ duration, because he does not adopt [the principle of] dayo,⁹³ as that law, but it cannot be stricter than the law from which it is derived. Thus, in the case before us, the law that causing a corpse to move conveys impurity, is derived — according to the First Sage of the Beraitha — from the law causing a dead animal to move. Hence if we apply the principle of dayo we must conclude that the impurity conveyed to one by causing a corpse to move is only as strict as causing a dead animal to move, namely, until the same evening. But since the anonymous First Sage recorded in the first half of the Beraitha clearly states that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity, it is clear that he does not accept the principle of dayo. On the other hand, Rabbi Meir who accepts this principle of dayo, cannot therefore derive the law that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity from the kal vachomer of the law of causing a dead animal to move. Hence he derives it from our verse which expressly likens the law of causing a corpse to move with that of touching it, in which latter case the impurity conveyed is that of a seven-days’ duration. This is the gist of Ramban’s explanation. whereas Rabbi Meir derived it from this verse [before us], because since he follows the principle of dayo,⁹³ as that law, but it cannot be stricter than the law from which it is derived. Thus, in the case before us, the law that causing a corpse to move conveys impurity, is derived — according to the First Sage of the Beraitha — from the law causing a dead animal to move. Hence if we apply the principle of dayo we must conclude that the impurity conveyed to one by causing a corpse to move is only as strict as causing a dead animal to move, namely, until the same evening. But since the anonymous First Sage recorded in the first half of the Beraitha clearly states that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity, it is clear that he does not accept the principle of dayo. On the other hand, Rabbi Meir who accepts this principle of dayo, cannot therefore derive the law that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity from the kal vachomer of the law of causing a dead animal to move. Hence he derives it from our verse which expressly likens the law of causing a corpse to move with that of touching it, in which latter case the impurity conveyed is that of a seven-days’ duration. This is the gist of Ramban’s explanation. therefore he cannot derive it by a kal vachomer⁹² argument]. See Ramban, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208. [from dead animals], as is stated in Tractate Baba Kamma, Chapter Keitzad Haregel.⁹⁴, although Rabbi Meir’s name is not specifically mentioned.

footnotes: ⁸² The implication is that the sword is itself “a progenitor of fathers of impurity” like the corpse, and the person who touches the sword becomes a “father of impurity,” who is rendered impure and may not enter the Divine camp for seven days. See above, Seder Chukath ⁸³ Verse 19. ⁸⁴ This term includes all vessels except those made of earthenware, which, once rendered impure, cannot be purified by immersion in a ritual pool or by any other means. All other vessels can be so purified. ⁸⁵ See above, Seder Chukath ⁸⁶ Above 19:16. See Ramban there. ⁸² The implication is that the sword is itself “a progenitor of fathers of impurity” like the corpse, and the person who touches the sword becomes a “father of impurity,” who is rendered impure and may not enter the Divine camp for seven days. See above, Seder Chukath ⁸⁷ Literally: “Three things” [the opening words of that particular chapter of the Tractate]. The text referred to here is found in Nazir 42b: “But is [the law that the corpse conveys] impurity [to a human being] by contact [with an object which touches the corpse at the same time as touching the human being] a Scriptural law? [It is only a law of the Rabbis!] “It is obvious, therefore, that the Scriptural ⁸⁸ Sifre, Chukath ⁸⁹ “And whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain ⁹⁰ This is known as tumath heset ⁹¹ In other words, Rabbi Meir’s statement [quoted by Rashi] does not refer to a vessel ⁸⁸ Sifre, Chukath ⁹² The syllogism of “a minor and major” [a fortiori ⁹¹ In other words, Rabbi Meir’s statement [quoted by Rashi] does not refer to a vessel ⁹² The syllogism of “a minor and major” [a fortiori ⁹³ Literally: “It is sufficient.” This means that it is “sufficient” for a law to be derived by logical conclusion from another law to be only as strict ⁹³ Literally: “It is sufficient.” This means that it is “sufficient” for a law to be derived by logical conclusion from another law to be only as strict ⁹² The syllogism of “a minor and major” [a fortiori ⁹⁴ Baba Kamma 25a. — The heading of the chapter means literally: “How is the leg” of a beast an attested danger. The Gemara there records a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Mishnah whether we accept the principle of dayo

YE AND YOUR CAPTIVES. [This means that] the captives also have to purify their garments⁹⁵ Ramban therefore explains that this refers to their garments, as explained in the text. which touched the slain, and every garment and every vessel of skin⁹⁶ which were in their possession, just as was the law with regard to the Israelites, in order that they would not defile the people with their garments and their vessels.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ Since the captives were non-Jews to whom the laws of ritual impurity do not apply, the question arises: why Moses said: purify yourselves … ye ‘and your captives?’ ⁹⁶ Verse 20.

EVERY THING THAT MAY COME INTO THE FIRE YE SHALL PASS THROUGH THE FIRE AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. A vessel which touched a human corpse or dead animal does not become purified by fire, since the immersion mentioned in the Torah is always in water. Therefore our Rabbis had to explain⁹⁷ that this purification [mentioned here by Scripture] refers to remove from them [the traces of] the forbidden foods which they had absorbed whilst they were in the possession of the non-Jews. This is the true [explanation] without any doubt.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Abodah Zarah 75b.

AND ALL THAT COMETH NOT INTO THE FIRE — “anything which is not [normally] used on fire, such as cups, flasks, and pitchers which are used [to contain] cold substances, and [therefore] have not absorbed [any of the traces of forbidden foods] ye shall pass through the water, meaning that it is sufficient to immerse them.” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for the term ta’aviru (ye shall pass through) does not refer to immersion; for [had this been the case], it would have said “tavi’u (ye shall put it) into water,” which is the expression used in connection with immersion, just as it says, it ‘yuva’ (must be put into) water, and it shall be unclean until the even, and then it shall be clean.⁹⁸ Furthermore, even those vessels, which are only used for cold things [of forbidden foods] need purification from [the traces of] their forbidden foods in addition to this immersion [which Rashi mentioned], and how can it be that Scripture [here] does not mention the [method] of purification [for such vessels] as it did with reference to those vessels that come into the fire? And when the Sages deduced [the necessity for] this immersion they did not mention that the source for it was this [part of the] verse [quoted here by Rashi], but interpreted it⁹⁷ [on the basis of that part of the verse which says]: “*Nevertheless it shall be purified with the waters of ‘niddah’*⁹⁹ — waters which are fit for a niddah (a menstruant woman) to immerse herself in.” But the meaning of ye shall pass through the water is that you should wash them and rub them thoroughly in water until you remove the deposit of forbidden foods which has formed on the vessels by being used for such foods, and this [process] constitutes their purification from the forbidden foods. Scripture is thus saying that [in order to purify a vessel from the forbidden food which it has absorbed] you must put into fire those [vessels] which are used on the fire, in exactly the same way that they were used for [cooking] the forbidden foods. Hence if it was used on the flame itself — such as [a vessel of] iron or copper, and also silver or gold — he must make it white-hot in a flame, and if it was used to contain hot substances, such as [a vessel made of] tin or lead, he cleanses it with boiling-hot water; and if it was not used on fire [or for hot substances] but only for cold foodstuffs, he scours it with water until it is properly cleansed, and then it becomes pure. And similarly the Sages said:⁹⁷ “He scours them, and immerses them, and they are then pure.” In the language of the Sifre:¹⁰⁰ 158. This language shows that the “passing through water” referred to here, means cleansing of the food deposits, and not, as Rashi explained, merely immersion. “Ye shall pass through the fire — such as knives, because they are [used as spits and] burned by the non-Jews. And all that cometh not into the fire, such as cups, ye shall pass through the water in order to remove the deposits of [the food of] the non-Jews.” And Scripture did not need to mention again [at this second part of the verse, i.e., and all that cometh ‘not’ into the fire], the necessity of immersion [in a ritual pool, which is required after cleansing the vessel before it can be used], because He had already mentioned [in the first part of the verse, concerning vessels that are used in the fire, stating]: nevertheless it shall be purified with the waters of ‘niddah’ [meaning, as explained above, “waters which are fit for ‘a menstruant’ woman to immerse herself in”], and [it is self-understood that] after the traces of forbidden foods have been removed from the vessels they are all alike with respect to the law [requiring] immersion [whether they were used in the fire or not]. And I further take into consideration¹⁰¹ 17:5, who is also of the opinion that the requirement of immersion of vessels is an ordinance of the Rabbis. See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deiah Chapter 120, for the application of this law nowadays. that this immersion [of all vessels obtained from non-Jews, after they have been cleansed from the traces and absorption of forbidden foods prepared in them], is a law of the Rabbis, and they quoted the verse merely as a Scriptural support [for the Rabbinic ordinance]. And similarly Onkelos translated [the phrase, the waters of ‘niddah’] as meaning “the purification of ‘sprinkling’ of [the water containing] the ashes of the [Red] Heifer” [which was required in order to purify those who had come into contact with a dead body, and thus it does not refer at all to the requirement of immersion. The Rabbis [according to this explanation] only required immersion of metal vessels, because some of them are used on fire, either as a “first vessel” [used directly on the flame], or as a “second vessel” [i.e., those which are not actually used for cooking but into which a boiling substance has been put or poured], and [some metal vessels are used] for cold foodstuffs. But this matter needs further investigation. Now He warned them here to remove from the vessels of the Midianites the [traces and absorptions of the] forbidden foods [which they had absorbed when they were in the possession] of the non-Jews, but He did not tell them this [law] at the beginning — in connection with the vessels of [the Amorite peoples ruled by] Sihon and Og which they also took as spoil, as it is said, Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, with the spoil of the cities which we had taken.¹⁰² The reason for this is that Sihon and Og were Amorite kings, and their land was part of Israel’s inheritance, and therefore all spoil taken from them was allowed for the Israelites, including foods [usually] forbidden; for it is written, and houses full of all good things, which thou didst not fill,¹⁰³, 6:11. and our Rabbis have said:¹⁰⁴ “kadlei¹⁰⁵, the reading is “katlei of swine,” which Rashi interprets as “dried swine.” See also Ramban on Deuteronomy 6:10. of swine was [hereby especially] permitted for them.” But Midian was not part of their [inheritance], and they [the Israelites] did not capture their land from them; it was only to execute vengeance on them [as they were commanded to do as a punishment for causing the Israelites to sin] that they killed them and took their spoil, and therefore the [usual] prohibition of using their vessels [without removing from them the traces and absorptions of the forbidden foods] applied. Similarly, He [only] commanded them [now] about the law of impurity [conveyed by the dead, saying], And abide ye without the camp seven days etc.¹⁰⁶ [and did not command them about it in the earlier war against Sihon and Og], because in the war against Sihon and Og all Israel participated, and when the [entire] public is involved, impurity is permitted,¹⁰⁷], has engendered much discussion among later scholars. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 328. [whereas, as explained above in Verse 6, only a select few, and not the whole people, were sent to execute vengeance on Midian.] But according to the plain meaning of Scripture, He warned them [the twelve thousand men who fought against Midian], “And abide ye without the camp seven days¹⁰⁶ and purify yourselves,” in order that they should not defile [the rest of] the people, but there [in the case of the wars against Sihon and Og] they were all equally impure [since they all went to fight; hence there was no point commanding them to abide without the camp, since they all required purification anyhow].

footnotes: ⁹⁸ Leviticus 11:32. ⁹⁷ Abodah Zarah 75b. ⁹⁹ Here in Verse 23. ⁹⁷ Abodah Zarah 75b. ¹⁰⁰ Sifre, Matoth ¹⁰¹ Literally: “And my heart further thinks” on this matter to say etc. — See Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’achaloth Assuroth ¹⁰² Deuteronomy 2:35. ¹⁰³ Ibid. ¹⁰⁴ Chullin 17a. ¹⁰⁵ The hind part of the head, together with the neck. In our Gemara ibid. ¹⁰⁶ Above, Verse 19. ¹⁰⁷ This principle refers primarily to the Divine Service in the Sanctuary, and the gist of it is that if all the priests and people became defiled, the public offerings may nonetheless be brought in this state of impurity, because “impurity is permitted when the [entire] public is involved.” Ramban’s application of this principle to the problem before us [namely why the people were not commanded in the wars against Sihon and Og that all who had come into contact with the dead must abide without the camp for seven days ¹⁰⁶ Above, Verse 19.

AND THOU SHALT LEVY A TRIBUTE UNTO THE ETERNAL. The reason for this tribute [given to the priests and Levites] was also because this spoil was taken from [a war constituting] the vengeance of the Eternal¹⁰⁸ on a land that was not theirs. But [from the spoil taken] in the lands of Sihon and Og they did not give any part at all to the priests and Levites; [on the contrary], they were even warned against [taking of] it, as it is said, neither shalt thou [Aaron] have ‘any’ portion among them, even in the spoil.¹⁰⁹, 18:20, according to the explanation of the Sifre, Korach 119.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ Above, Verse 3. ¹⁰⁹ Ibid.

AND MOSES AND ELEAZAR THE PRIEST DID AS THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES. The reason why it does not mention the princes [i.e., the heads of the fathers’ houses of the congregation, although in Verse 26 it said that they were to be present at the counting and division of the spoils] is because it is self-understood that they did as Moses commanded them, since he was their ruler, although in the matter of counting the people it does say, These are those that were numbered, which Moses and Aaron numbered, ‘and the princes of Israel.”¹¹⁰ Perhaps the reason [for not using such an expression] here is that G-d commanded that [the heads of] the fathers’ houses of the congregation¹¹¹ should be present [at the counting and distributing of the spoils] because it involved monetary matters, so that the people would not suspect Eleazar of taking for himself more than he was entitled to; therefore this commandment [to include the heads of the congregation] was an optional matter [for their benefit], and they said: “Far be it from us! For he [Eleazar] is the messenger of the Eternal,¹¹² and there is no need for us to be there.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Above, 1:44. ¹¹¹ Verse 26. ¹¹² See Malachi 2:7.

AND THE HALF, WHICH WAS THE PORTION OF THEM THAT WENT OUT TO WAR, WAS IN NUMBER etc. Scripture had to enumerate [the spoil] in such detail, mentioning how much was the half [of these who went to war] and how much was the tribute [given to the priests and Levites, although both these figures can be worked out from the total figures mentioned], in order to inform us that from the day that they took this booty until they counted and halved it, set aside the tribute and gave it to Eleazar the priest, not one of all this great herd died. This was a miracle. This is also [the reason why Scripture mentions] the half [given] to the congregation [of Israel who did not fight, and the amount that they gave] to the Levites.¹¹³

footnotes: ¹¹³ Verses 42-47.

THY SERVANTS HAVE TAKEN THE SUM OF THE MEN OF WAR THAT ARE UNDER OUR CHARGE, AND THERE LACKETH NOT ONE MAN OF US. [The meaning of this is]: “G-d has wrought a great salvation through us, for not one of all those men of war that were under our charge died, or was wounded by the sword so that he would be missing from the host; and therefore we want to bring the Eternal’s offering¹¹⁴ [to Him] Who saved us, to give before Him the atonement for our souls¹¹⁴ because He redeemed [us] from death, and in war from the power of the sword.”¹¹⁵ And our Rabbis have interpreted [the verse as follows]:¹¹⁶ “And there lacketh not one man — [going off] to commit a sin.” That is to say, they were continually under our charge, and not a single one of our brothers who were in the host went off to another place to commit a sin.” And Moses said to them: “If so, what is this offering for?” They replied, “To make atonement for our souls¹¹⁴ — sinful “thoughts of the heart.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Verse 50. ¹¹⁴ Verse 50. ¹¹⁵ Job 5:20. ¹¹⁶ Shabbath 64a. ¹¹⁴ Verse 50.

AND THEY BROUGHT IT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING, FOR A MEMORIAL FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BEFORE THE ETERNAL. It would appear from this verse that they made them [the ornaments they had captured] into vessels to be used for the Service [in the Sanctuary], and handed them over to the public for a memorial for all the children of Israel with which to perform the Service of G-d throughout their generations. For had these vessels [merely] gone to the treasury of the House of G-d [rather than actually being used for the Divine Service], the verse should rather have said, “a memorial ‘for them’ before the Eternal,” but [the phrase] the children of Israel [a memorial for ‘the children of Israel’] includes all the people, and [it means] that the memorial consists of something permanent.¹¹⁷ to the donors, whereas now that they themselves were used as vessels in the Divine Service, they served as a memorial for all the children of Israel for all times, as the Service in the Sanctuary is designated for all generations (see e.g. Exodus 29:42).

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ For had the donations gone to the general treasury of the Sanctuary they would have only been a memorial