But not against the Moavites. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why were they commanded to take revenge against the Midianites? Surely the Moavites hired Bil’am, as it is written in Parshas Balak (22:5). You might ask: Why does Rashi bring two reasons here, but in Parshas Pinchas (25:18) he brings only one? The answer is that he is answering another question: Why did the Torah here change its language and write “take revenge” while there it is written (25:17), “Antagonize the Midianites”? Rather, one must say that it was in order to make the inference: “Against the Midianites,” but not against the Moavites. Consequently, we see from the inference of “take revenge” that it was specifically killing them that was forbidden, while hating them was permitted. However, above (ibid.) it is implied that even hating them was forbidden, as it is written, “Antagonize the Midianites” [implying that they could not even antagonize the Moavites]. Thus the verses apparently contradict each other. In response, Rashi here brings two reasons: [Firstly] it is forbidden to kill them, “For the Midianites entered the matter out of fear…” [And secondly] regarding the implication that it is permitted to hate them, this was after the conversion of the "two doves," because the main reason [for not killing them] was for the sake of "two doves," etc. Therefore once the two doves had emerged it was permitted to hate them, however beforehand it was forbidden.

Enraged over a dispute which was not theirs. Meaning: They became enraged to quarrel with Yisroel when they, i.e. Yisroel, had not traveled through their land. Thus, they had no reason to quarrel with Yisroel.

For the sake of two doves. פרידות means “doves.” [You might ask: How could he say this] even though only one of them came from Moav. The answer is that Rashi used the language of the Gemara (Bava Kamma 38b). The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that above it was implied that even Midianites were fearful of Yisroel, as Rashi explained above that, “They made peace between themselves…” (22:4), therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the second interpretation there is the difficulty that Hashem could have arranged that Yisroel would not kill the ancestors of the family of Rus, so why did he command them regarding the entire nation, [saying] not to antagonize Moav? Therefore, Rashi also brings the first reason.

Although he heard that his demise depended… For it is written, “Take revenge… afterward, you shall be gathered to your people” (v. 2). However, if not so [that he joyfully implemented it], why is it necessary to say, “Moshe spoke,” given that ordinarily he related to Yisroel everything that Hashem commanded?

Righteous men. For the Torah should not have written “men” given that it is not the nature of women to go out to war, so obviously they were men. Rather, “men” comes to teach you that they were righteous. Likewise, in Parshas Shelach (13:2) Rashi did not explain these words, “Send men for yourself” that they were righteous, because the word “men” was necessary for itself [i.e., to convey the plain meaning]. However, concerning “men” that was written subsequently (13:3) he explained that they were righteous, because the word “men” there is apparently superfluous since “men” had already been mentioned. Re’m explains that [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “From among yourselves” and since this statement was addressed to men, it is logical that those who were went to war were men. Therefore, why was it necessary to write “men”?

**It is as if he stands…**Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why is it not written “revenge of Yisroel”?

This includes the tribe of Levi. One would have said that since the tribe of Levi did not take a portion in the land, they would also not partake in the army. Therefore it was necessary to include them. You might ask: Since the tribe of Levi also went to the army there would be thirteen [thousand] since Ephraim and Menashe were considered [separately] in all of the counts. But it is written, “They were handed over… one thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand.” Re’m answers that Ephraim and Menashe were considered two tribes only regarding the inheritance of the Land. Consequently, for the selection of spies which was required as part of the inheritance of the Land, they were considered two tribes. However here, where it was solely [for the purpose] to avenge Hashem, they were referred to as only one tribe. See the commentators who discuss this matter at length.

They refused to go until they were handed over against their wishes. For if not so, it should have said, “Moshe took twelve thousand…”

This teaches that Pinchas was equivalent to all of them. For it is written “Moshe sent them [one thousand…].” So why did the Torah repeat itself and write, “Them and Pinchas”? Rather, it was to teach that…

Why did Pinchas go… It is understandable without this [previous comment], for one would have said that the reason he did not send Elozor was due to Elozor’s importance, since he was equivalent to all of them. However, now that Rashi explained that Pinchas was also equivalent to all of them, why did he send Pinchas?

By executing Kozbi … Another interpretation. According to the [first] reason alone there is the difficulty that the principle mitzvah was his executing Zimri, not Kozbi. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation that “he sought…” However, according to the other interpretation alone there is the difficulty that [ultimately] it was for Yosef’s benefit that they sold him to the Egyptians, for he became the ruler there. Therefore Rashi brings another interpretation that he was anointed for warfare. However, according to this reason alone there is the difficulty as to why the verse specified Pinchas’ name [teaching] he was anointed for warfare regarding this war more than another war. Therefore Rashi required all the reasons. (Gur Aryeh) It appears to me that the intent of this teaching is not to say that Pinchas was a reminder for them of what the Midianites did to Yosef, for any love or hatred towards them had already disappeared, and there was no memory of them. Rather, it means that when Moshe saw that the sale of Yosef took place through the Midianites, he realized that the Midianites were his nemesis. For if this were not so, the sale of Yosef would not have taken place through their hand, given that [Hashem] only brings evil upon a person through those who are the antithesis of them. Yosef was the antithesis of Midian, for he scrupulously resisted immorality, while they abandoned their wives and daughters to promiscuity. And this is what Rashi means when he said, “From the children of Yosef who scorned his evil inclination.” Thus, because he scorned his evil inclination he was the antithesis of Midian and they received their punishment through Pinchas, one of the descendants of Yosef, who in contrast to Midian resisted illicit relationships.

This refers to the Ark and the Golden Headplate. Because both are termed “holy,” as it is written [concerning the Ark] at the end of Parshas Bamidbar (4:20), “They shall not come in to see when the holy is being covered.” And concerning the Headplate, it is written in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 28:36), “Make a Headplate … holy to Hashem.”

In his possession. So that you should not wonder: How could Pinchas have carried all of this in his hand, the Ark with the Headplate and the trumpets?

To receive the reward for the twenty-four thousand. Rashi is answering the question: Why was Bil’am with the Midianites? Surely he was from Aram Naharayim. [And the reason why] he went to the Midianites to ask for his reward rather than going to Balak was because they were the agents of the sin. Alternatively, he may have been there at that time because he passed through on his way to Balak to request his reward. (Nachalas Yaakov) The answer [why he went there and not to Balak] is that when he heard Yisroel came to antagonize the Midianites, he went to help them and also to take his reward. Thus, there was a dual cause; for it is possible that he would not have gone to Balak for the reward alone, and consequently this is why he did not go. (Gur Aryeh) answers that by law, the Moavites were not liable to pay him, because they could claim that when they had agreed to give him a large reward they did so out of fear. We see this concept in the last chapter of Bava Kamma (116a) concerning one who was fleeing prison and offered someone a dinar to take him across [a river]. There he can only claim his [normal] fee because the fugitive made his offer only out of fear. Here too Bil’am would receive only a nominal reward, a small amount for the trouble of his speaking and for the advice he had given them. However, the Midianites were not afraid and they promised him a large reward, thus they were obliged to pay his full reward as they had agreed. [Alternatively Bil’am’s advice] was agreeable to Midian but not to Moav, for Moav acted out of fear, while Midian acted out of hatred, as Rashi says that they abandoned their daughters [to promiscuity] (25:15). (Kitzur Mizrochi) answers that in accordance with the Midrash that Tzur was Balak, consequently he was one of the five kings of Midian, and therefore Bil’am went there to request from him his reward.

And offered them evil advice. For if not so, how could they have killed him given that he was not a Midianite? One cannot say [they killed Bil’am] because he caused them to sin, for they did not know this until they returned from Midian, as it states (v. 16), “They were the very same ones who, on Bil’am’s advice, were involved with Bnei Yisroel.” Rather, it was because he offered them evil advice [i.e.] to rebel against Hashem’s command.

His reward in full… One can explain משלם literally as meaning “in full.” Consequently, ולא קפחוהו ["without stinting"] would mean that they did not deduct anything for him, rather they paid him in full for the evil that he had done to them. Alternatively one could explain it as משלם ["from their own'] with a segol under the [letter] shin and a kammatz under the [letter] lamed, meaning, “From that which belongs to the nations,” i.e. the sword was given to them. Since he took up the craft of Yisroel [so they confronted him…] as Rashi explains below.

Ministers. For סרני is the same as שרים ["ministers"] and it is rendered by Targum as טורני. Thus, we see that טורני means ministers. Furthermore, טורני is related to טירותם which [therefore] means the place where ministers sit. According to the last reason alone there is the difficulty that it should have written טורנות, and according to the first reason there is the difficulty that it should have written נוטרותן. Therefore, Rashi brings both reasons.

The plunder of moveable property. As Rashi explains later (v. 32) on the words, “In addition to the בז ["plunder"] that was taken” that this refers to “what remained after the plunder of moveable property that the warriors plundered for themselves.” This implies that the plunder remained in their possession while the moveable property consisting of ornaments ["booty"] did not. For, this [booty] was brought before Hashem as it is written (v. 50). “We have therefore brought an offering for Hashem…” Thus one is forced to say that בז ["plunder"] refers to non-ornamental moveable property. Re’m writes: However, I do not know from where Rashi learned this, for it would have been more appropriate to say that [שלל "booty"] includes all moveable property, given that the plunder as a whole was divided into שלל ["booty"] and מלקוח ["spoil"]. It appears that Rashi also held that when it is written כל השלל [all the booty"] it includes everything, whether it was ornamental or not. However Rashi wishes to explain why sometimes Scripture calls it שלל ["booty"] and sometimes Scripture calls it בז ["plunder"]. Furthermore, why is it not written (in v. 32), “The spoil was in addition to the שלל ["booty"] that was taken…”? Rather, one must say that here שלל refers to ornamental moveable property, while בז refers to non-ornamental moveable property

Capable of intimate relations. Such as a girl aged three years and one day. Anyone younger than this is not capable of intimate relations.

Even if she never actually had relations. Because if it were not so, the verses would apparently be contradictory. For it is written, “Every woman with intimate knowledge of a man” which implies that only an adult who had relations [was executed], but an adult who had not had relations would be kept alive. [Also that] a minor whether she had relations or not would be kept alive. Then it is written (v. 18) “All the children among the females without intimate knowledge of a man, keep alive for yourselves.” This implies specifically a minor who had not had relations, but a minor who had relations, or an adult whether she had relations or not would be killed. Consequently, the first and second verses are apparently contradictory. Therefore Rashi was forced to explain “capable…”

For when I read… “And all the children among the females.” You might ask: If so [that we might assume they were kept alive], why is it necessary to write (v. 18), “All the children among the females without intimate knowledge of a man, keep alive for yourselves”? For now even a woman who had intimate knowledge of a man was kept alive, so certainly who had not, was kept alive. Rather, we see that since the verse needed to write, “And all the children among the females without intimate knowledge [of a man], keep alive for yourselves,” [it implies] that a woman who had intimate knowledge of a man was killed. One might say that Scripture had to write, “All the children among the females…” because if it had not I would not know whether “Every woman with intimate knowledge of a man” referred to someone who was capable of intimate relations, even though they had not had relations, or perhaps only to one who actually had relations. For the reason why we establish it as referring to someone capable of having relations is because otherwise the verses are apparently contradictory, as explained. Re’m answers in a different vein.

This is why “[you must] execute” is said. You might ask: Nonetheless, why is it necessary to write “Now execute every male” at the beginning of the verse? The answer is that if it had not written “execute” referring to the males in the beginning of the verse, I would have said that regarding them there was also a difference between someone capable of intimate relations, [i.e.] an adult, and someone who was incapable, [i.e.] a minor. Therefore, the verse said “now execute” in every case. Mahari answers that if it had not written “execute” the implication of the verse would be that we expound “every woman” with reference to that which is written afterwards. Now, once it refers to the section afterwards we would reverse our logic [as follows]: We would say that if it had only written, “Every woman with intimate knowledge of a man” but it had not written about the children, I would not have used a kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) to learn that they be kept alive. For I would have said that since she was capable of intimate relations but did not engage in relations, therefore she was kept alive, because she was capable of causing Yisroel to sin but did not do so. However, regarding the children, who were not capable of intimate relations, they have no merit to be kept them alive. Therefore, the Torah wrote “execute” in order to separate [the two].

So that they would not enter the Sanctuary courtyard. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely someone defiled by a corpse is even permitted to enter the Levite camp, so why does it state, “You shall remain outside the camp”? He answers that “camp” refers to the Sanctuary courtyard.

That a utensil defiles … as if he had touched the corpse itself. Rashi wishes to answer the question: “Whoever has killed a person” also implies the case where one did not touch him. However, if one shot an arrow and killed him, or killed with a simple wooden utensil that is incapable of receiving contamination, why would he become be defiled?

Since “man” was only said in the context of tent contamination. You might ask: Surely concerning [contamination through] touching it also writes “man” in Parshas Chukas, where it is written (19:13), “Whoever touches a corpse of a man’s soul.” See Tosafos Bava Kamma 38a where you will find an explanation for all the verses in which gentiles are also termed “man.”

They will require sprinkling. [Meaning that] this verse was also said for subsequent generations. This is also holds true for the entire passage of purging utensils.

This includes utensils made from the horns. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why was it necessary to say “Everything made of goat products”? Surely it is written “every leather article.”

He credited the teaching to his master. Meaning that he should not have said that he heard this from his master, instead he should have said it without elaborating, for surely the entire Torah was given through Moshe. Rather, it was in order to relate the matter in the name of the one who said it, as with “And Esther told the king in Mordechai’s name” (Esther 2:22).

In which to cook something. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Just because the artisan made a utensil in fire, would the Torah require one to pass it through fire again? Thus, he explains “in which to cook” and this is an abbreviated verse, for it should have said, “Anything placed on a fire in which to cook [forbidden food].”

To cleanse it from the contamination of the dead. Thus the word נדה ["sprinkling"] is in the sense of וידו אבן בי ["threw a stone at me"] (Eichah 3:53). However, according to the extrapolative interpretation [מי נדה] is in the sense of נדת דותה ["niddah flow"] (Vayikra 12:2), meaning water suitable for the immersion of the niddah. And because the word יתחטא ["be purified"] is only appropriate for החטוי ["purification"], Rashi termed the first explanation “the plain interpretation.” Furthermore, because “water suitable for the immersion of the niddah” refers to forty se'ah, and this is suitable for any impurity, it should have said במי טמא יתחטא [lit. "be purified with water [suitable for immersion of] the impure"]. Therefore, Rashi says, “The Rabbis extrapolate here…” [rather than considering its plain interpretation].

Immerse them and it is sufficient.[One might ask:] Why did the Torah refer to immersion using the term of “passing” instead of “bringing” as in “it shall be brought into water and remain contaminated until evening” (Vayikra 11:32)? The answer is that since it said above, “You must pass through fire,” which does not mean that it was passed through fire, rather it was brought on the fire, the same is true for “passing” here, that it too is in the sense of being brought, and refers to immersion. Now that immersion is required, one must remove any substance that adhered to the utensil, so that there will not be any interposition during immersion as it is written, “Only the gold…” (v. 22).

Make an accounting. [Thusשא] means קבל ["take" or "receive"] as in לא תשא שמע שוא ["Do not receive a false report"] (Shemos 23:1). But it is not in the sense of "raising" as in ישא פרעה את ראשך ["Pharoh will lift off your head"] (Bereishis 40:19). The meaning of ראש [lit. "head"] is an accounting of the total, as in כי תשא את ראש ["when you take a census"] (Shemos 30:12). A total is termed ראש ["head"] because it is the tradition of those who are accounting takers to write the total at the head [i.e. top] of a tally sheet.

Half for these. Rashi wishes to answer the question: The verse implies that those who took part in the war would stand on one side and the rest of the community on the other, and he would divide [the spoils] between these two groups [but the verse does mention anything about distribution]. If so, what was the reason for doing this [i.e., standing on opposite sides]? Furthermore, the verse does not explain to whom [i.e. in what proportion] are the portions to be given. Rashi answers that the verse means to say that half should be given to these and half to these.

For the community, by appropriating it for them… Meaning that when the verse writes, “that Moshe divided from the men of the army” it implies that he divided the men themselves. However this is impossible. Furthermore, why does the verse not explain to whom Moshe gave the portion? Thus, Rashi explains “for the community” meaning that he gave it to the community by appropriating it for them from the military men, and not [the men] themselves. Accordingly, this is an abbreviated verse.

So much and so much. Not that it comes to teach us the total of this half, because this could be learned from the half-portion of those who partook in the war (v. 36). Rather this section continues until “Moshe took…” (v. 47) [teaching] that he took one fiftieth from this half and gave it to the Levites. Furthermore, if not so it should have said מחצית ["the half"], however ממחצית ["from the half"] indicates that what he took was from the half.

To atone … concerning the daughters of Midian. You might ask: Was a woman seized in war [יפת תואר] not permitted to them? The answer is that such a woman would only be permitted after the seven years in which they conquered the land and the seven years in which they divided it. This is also the implication of the Talmud Yerushalmi at the end of Maseches Avodah Zarah. It appears to me that the answer is [as follows:] When the Torah permitted a woman seized in war, it was specifically in a discretionary war. However this war was comparable to an obligatory war [about which it is stated,] “You shall not let any soul live.” And Yisroel did not know this initially, until after Moshe became angry with them over their letting the females live. Therefore [it emerges that] their thoughts concerning the daughters of Midian were in a state of sin. (Kitzur Mizrochi) In my opinion it is unnecessary to say this, for there the Rabbis state (Kiddushin 21b) that “the Torah spoke against the evil inclination” and call her “dying [but] slaughtered meat” implying that she was not permitted completely. Rather, one who is meticulous should distance himself from her, and this is what is meant [by "their sinful thoughts”].