Matot מטות

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ראשי המטות [AND MOSES SPAKE TO] THE HEADS OF THE TRIBES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — This does not mean that he spoke only to the princes of the children of Israel and not to the people also, but that he showed respect to the princes by teaching them first and that afterwards he taught the children of Israel. This explanation seems to assume that this was the general method of instruction, but from what Biblical verse may we infer that this was so in the case of all addresses, and that this was no exceptional case? Because it says, (Exodus 34:31—32) “[And Moses called unto them], and Aaron and all the princes of the congregation returned unto him and Moses spake unto them; and afterwards all the children of Israel came nigh, [and he gave them all the commandments which the Lord had spoken to him in Mount Sinai]”. But if this be no exceptional case, what reason is there for Scripture going out of its way to state it here? Because by specially stating that the laws about vows were taught in the first instance to the princes and afterwards to the Israelites, it intends to teach that the annulling of vows is really to be effected by one person who is expert in the Law, and that only if there be no such expert, may they be annulled by three ordinary persons. But you may perhaps say that the statement does mean that Moses spoke this section only to the princes of the children of Israel, and that Moses did not speak to them also, and that consequently nothing about the expert and laymen can be inferred! But it is stated here, “This is the word”, and it is stated in the passage dealing with “animals slaughtered outside the sanctuary” (Leviticus 17:2) “This is the word”. What is the case there? It was addressed to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel, as it is said there, “Speak unto Aaron [and unto his sons and unto all the children of Israel]”! So, too, this was addressed to all of them (and the reason why it is stated here is to tell us that the annulling of vows etc., as above) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 153:1; Nedarim 78a).

זה הדבר THIS IS THE WORD — Moses prophesied with the words (introduced his message by the statement), “Thus saith the Lord, About midnight [will I go into the midst of Egypt]” (Exodus 11:4), and other prophets also prophesied with “Thus saith the Lord”, Moses, however, had an additional superiority in that he prophesied also with the expression “This is the actual word [that God hath spoken]” (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:2). Another explanation of זה הדבר THIS IS THE WORD: it is a restrictive phrase serving to intimate that the Sage (the expert) makes use of the expression “invalidating” (התרה), and the husband (dealing with his wife’s vows), only of the expression “annulling” (הפרה), as is the language of Scripture here (e. g., in v. 9), and that if they (one of them) exchanges the expression, it (the vow) is not invalidated nor is it annulled as the case may be (Nedarim 78a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

נדר A VOW — This is when one says, Behold, I take upon myself an obligation which is as sacred to me as an offering, that I will not eat, or that I will not do such-and-such a thing. — One might think that if he swears that he will eat the flesh of an animal which has not been slaughtered properly according to the rite that I may apply to him the text, “He shall do according to all that goeth forth from his mouth”! It, however, says, “[If he takes an oath] to forbid something to himself”, i.e., to forbid for himself something which is permissible to him — and not to make permissible that which is forbidden to him (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:4).

לא יחל דברו This is the same as לא יחלל דברו (the root of יחל being חלל): He shall not make his own word to bear a secular character (חולין) (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:4; see also Rashi on Leviticus 21:4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

בבית אביה [IF A WOMAN VOW] … BEING IN HER FATHER’S HOUSE — i.e., under her father’s control, but the law here stated applies even though she be not in his house, provided she be under his control (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:4).

בנעורה IN HER YOUTH — when she is a נערה i.e., in the first state of womanhood, but not when she is a קטנה, a minor, and not when she is a בוגרת (in full womanhood); for so far as a minor is concerned, her vow is in general no vow (it is null and void ab initio), and a בוגרת is not under her father’s control so that he can annul her vows. What is a קטנה, a minor, in respect to vows? We may gather this from what our Rabbis said: a woman of eleven years and one day must have her vows investigated until she reaches the age of twelve years; if she understands in Whose name it is that she has made the vow or in Whose name it is she has dedicated the thing, her vow is a vow, but a woman of twelve years and a day does not require any investigation regarding her vow (Niddah 56b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואם הניא אביה אתה BUT IF HER FATHER DISALLOWED HER — The Hebrew signifies, “if he withholds her” from the vow, that is to say, that he annuls it for her. I would not know what this expression הניא, “withholding”, implies (i.e., how he withholds her) — but when it states, (v. 9) “But if on the day that he hears, he withholds her and annuls [her vows]”, one must admit that “the withholding” consists in “annulling the vow” (i.e. in exclaiming מופר לך) (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:6). But still the plain meaning is that it is a term for “withholding” and “removing” (and the word והפר only shows how and by what means she is to be withheld from keeping her vow); and similar is (Numbers 32:7): “And wherefore do you remove (תניאון) [the heart of the children of Israel from the idea of passing over the land]”; and so, too, (Psalms 141:5): “Oil so choice, let not my head turn away (יניא), and similar, also, (Numbers 14:34): “And ye shall know My turning aside (תנואתי)” — i.e. ye shall know that ye have turned aside from Me.

וה' יסלח לה AND THE LORD SHALL FORGIVE HER — Of what is Scripture here speaking? Of a woman who, e.g., vowed that she would become a Nazarite, and whose father heard it and annulled it for her, but she knew it not, and transgressed her vow and drank wine or made herself unclean by means of a corpse. It is such a woman who requires forgiveness even though it (her vow) has been annulled. — And if those whose vows have been annulled require forgiveness in such a case, how much more is this so for those whose vows have not been annulled and have been transgressed! (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:6; cf. Kiddushin 81b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואם היו תהיה לאיש AND IF SHE BECOMES A MAN’S — (a phrase used for marriage). This refers to a woman who becomes betrothed (ארוסה). Or perhaps this is not so, but it refers to a married woman (one who has joined her husband; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 21:9). When, however, it says, (v. 11) “And if she vowed in her husband’s house”, it is evident that a married woman is being spoken of there, and here, therefore, the text is speaking of one who has been only betrothed. And it (the separate mention of her) is intended to make a different rule about her — that her father and her husband must annul her vow: if the father annulled and the husband did not annul, or the husband annulled and the father did not annul, then this vow is not regarded as annulled, and it is not necessary to state (and it is a matter of course) that if one of them confirmed the vow the other has no power to annul it (Sifrei Bamidbar 153:7; Nedarim 67a).

ונדריה עליה [AND IF SHE BECOMES A MAN’S] AND HER VOWS ARE UPON HER — It means that she had made the vows being in her father’s house, and her father did not hear them, and so they were neither annulled nor confirmed at the time of her betrothal (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 153:7).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ושמע אישה וגו׳ BUT IF HER HUSBAND HEARD etc. — Here you have the case that if the husband confirmed the vow, it is confirmed. (That the father may confirm the vows of his betrothed daughter is given in v. 5 which statement applies also to w. 6 ff. — see Note).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והפר את נדרה AND HE (THE HUSBAND) ANNULS HER VOW — One might think that since confirmation by the husband does not require the assent of the father, in the case mentioned here it is annulled even if the father has not annulled it! It, however, states, (v. 17): "[These are the laws … relating to a father with his daughter] בנעריה בית אביה" which means: so long as she is בנעריה (not fully married) she is under her father’s control (Sifrei Bamidbar 155; Ketuvot 46b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כל אשר אסרה על נפשה יקום עליה [BUT THE VOW OF A WIDOW AND OF ONE WHO IS DIVORCED] EVERYTHING WHEREWITH SHE HATH BOUND HER SOUL SHALL STAND AGAINST HER — because she is not under the control of a father or under the control of a husband. Scripture is speaking of one who is a widow after having been fully married (נשואה) (Sifrei Bamidbar 154:1), but in the case of one who becomes a widow after having only been betrothed, if her husband dies his entire authority becomes emptied (void) and returns to her father (Nedarim 70a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואם בית אישה נדרה AND IF SHE VOWED IN HER HUSBAND’S HOUSE — Here Scripture is speaking of a woman who is fully married (Sifrei Bamidbar 154:1; Nedarim 67a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כל נדר וכל שבעת אסר וגו׳ EVERY VOW AND EVERY BINDING OATH [TO AFFLICT THE SOUL HER HUSBAND MAY CONFIRM IT OR HER HUSBAND MAY ANNUL IT] — Because it states that a husband may annul his wife’s vows, one might think that all vows are implied! It therefore states: “[every vow] …to afflict the soul” — he may annul only vows to afflict the soul, and these are set forth in Treatise Nedarim 79b.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מיום אל יום [BUT IF HER HUSBAND ALTOGETHER HOLD HIS PEACE AT HER] FROM DAY TO DAY — In order that you should not say that ביום שמעו in v. 13 means that the husband has the right of annulling from the time on the day when she made the vow to the same time on the next day (i.e., twenty-four hours), it accordingly states מיום אל יום, i.e., from the day when she makes the vow up to the next day, — to tell you that he may annul the vow only up to when it becomes dark, [for then another day begins] (cf. Nedarim 76b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אחרי שמעו [BUT IF HE SHALL AT ALL ANNUL THEM] AFTER HE HATH HEARD THEM i.e., after he has heard and confirmed them — that he had said, “I am content with it”, then if he turns and annuls it even on the same day (Sifrei Bamidbar 156:2).

ונשא את עונה HE SHALL BEAR HER INIQUITY — He takes her place. We learn from here that he who makes another take a false step takes his place in respect to all punishments which he would incur (Sifrei Bamidbar 156:2).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מאת המדינים [AVENGE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] OF THE MIDIANITES — but not of the Moabites, for the Moabites entered into the matter out of fear, because they feared that they might plunder them, since about them it was stated only, (Deuteronomy 2:9) “Do not contend with them in battle”; but the Midianites, however, had got excited (had interfered) in a quarrel that did not concern them. Another explanation of why God forbade them to wage war against the Moabites, and which explains at the same time why they had been forbidden to wage war against the Ammonites (cf. Deuteronomy 2:19): because, said He, of the two goodly doves (virtuous women) which I am to bring forth from them, — Ruth the Moabitess, and Naamah the Ammonitess [Solomon's wife] (Bava Kamma 38b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וידבר משה וגו׳ AND MOSES SPAKE etc. — Although he had heard (v. 2) that his death was associated with this matter, he did it gladly and did not delay (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:2).

החלצו — Understand this as the Targum does in the sense of “equipped (חלוצי) for war”, armed.

אנשים MEN — righteous men, and similar is, (Exodus 17:9) “Choose men for us”, and so, too, (Deuteronomy 1:13) “men wise and well-known” (Midrash Tanchuma, Matot 3).

‎'נקמת ה‎ “THE VENGEANCE OF THE LORD” — [This is really equivalent to the expression God had employed (v.2), “the vengeance of the children of Israel”], because whoever attacks Israel is as though he attacks the Holy One blessed be He.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לכל מטות ישראל [A THOUSAND OF EVERY TRIBE] THROUGHOUT ALL THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL — including, therefore, the tribe of Levi (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:3).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וימסרו SO THERE WERE HANDED OVER … [A THOUSAND OF EVERY TRIBE] — This serves to tell you in what high esteem the shepherds of Israel were really held — how dear they were to Israel. Up until they had heard of his approaching death what does it state? That Moses felt constrained to exclaim about them, “They are almost ready to stone me”! (Exodus 17:14). But when they heard that Moses’ death was associated with the execution of vengeance upon Midian (cf. v. 2), they refused to go to war until they were “handed over” against their own will (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:3).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אתם ואת פינחס [MOSES SENT THEM … TO THE WAR], THEM AND PHINEAS — The repetition of the word אתם, “them”, in association with Phineas’ name tells us that Phineas was regarded as equal to all of them together. — But why did Phineas go and Eleazar did not go? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “He who made a beginning with this meritorious work, in that he slew Kozbi the daughter of Zur (who was a Midianitess), let him complete it”. — Another explanation why Phineas and not Eleazar went is that he went to take vengeance for Joseph, his mother’s ancestor, as it is said, (Genesis 37:36) “And the Midianites sold him [unto Egypt]”. And from where do we know that Phineas’ mother was of the family of Joseph? Because it is said, (Exodus 6:25) that she was “one of the daughters of Putiel” (see Rashi on that verse) — which is explained to mean that she was of the seed of Jethro who used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous worship, and of the seed of Joseph who overcame (שפטפט, who talked or argued with) his passions (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 157:4; Sotah 43a). — Another explanation: Phineas went because he was the high priest anointed for war purposes (cf. Deuteronomy 20:2 and Rashi thereon) (Sotah 43a).

וכלי הקדש AND THE VESSELS OF HOLINESS … [WERE WITH THEM] — these were the Ark and the Golden Plate (which are termed קדש, “holiness”, in Numbers 4:20 and Leviticus 8:9 respectively) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 157:4; Sotah 43a). — Because Balaam was with them (the Midianites) and through enchantment he made the kings of Midian float in the air and he himself floated with them, he (Phineas) showed them (held up to them) the Golden Plato upon which the Divine Name was engraved and they immediately fell to the ground. On this account it is said (v. 8) of the Kings of Midian that they were killed “upon those belonging to them who had been killed”, meaning that they fell from the air upon those who had already been killed; and similarly of Balaam it is written in the book of Joshua (13:22): “[And Balaam the son of Beor did the children of Israel slay] upon those who were slain by them” (Midrash Tanchuma, Matot 2; Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10:2).

בידו means IN HIS POSSESSION (not actually “in his hand”, for it was impossible for him to hold these sacred objects in his hand), similar to (21:26) “And he took all his land from his possession (מידו)” (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

חמשת מלכי מדין THE FIVE KINGS OF MIDIAN — But can I not see that Scripture has enumerated five; why, then, does it feel compelled to say that there were five? But it is to tell you that even as they had all been alike in the plot, so, too, they were treated alike in the punishment that befell them (cf. Rashi on Genesis 25:22, where, as here, the total of the names mentioned is stated) (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5). — Balaam had gone there to receive the reward for the 24,000 whom he had made to fall of Israel through his counsel and now also he left Midian to meet Israel and gave them bad advice: viz., he said to them, “If, when you were 600,000 you were unable to overcome them, now you come to war against them with 12,000?” They gave him his full reward and did not stint it (they slew him) (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5).

בחרב [BALAAM ALSO … THEY SLEW] WITH THE SWORD — He came against Israel exchanging his metier (the sword) for their metier (the mouth), for they conquer only through their mouth — through prayer and petition, and he came and availed himself of their craft to curse them with his mouth. They, therefore, also came against him and exchanged their craft for the craft of the heathen peoples who come with the sword, as it is said, (Genesis 27:40) “And by thy sword shalt thou live” (cf. Rashi on Numbers 22:23).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

טירתם means the place of their scribes (notarii) — a term which is denoting the dwelling-place of their priests, those well acquainted with their laws (cf. Siphre). Another explanation is that it means the place of their princes, just as “the lords of the Philistines” (I Samuel 6:4) is translated in the Targum by “the טורני of the Philistines” (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויקחו את כל השלל AND THEY TOOK ALL THE SPOIL…[AND THEY BROUGHT IT TO MOSES] — This tells us that they were pious and righteous men and were not suspected of robbery by stretching out their hand against the spoil without permission, for it is said, “they took all the spoil … [and brought it to Moses]” (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5). About them it is expressed in the traditional literature (Songs 6:6): “They teeth are like a flock of ewes … [whereof all are perfect]’ — i.e., even thy soldiers are all righteous (see Rashi Songs 4:2)

שלל are movables consisting of clothing and ornaments.

בז is booty of movables that are not ornaments.

מלקוח are men and cattle, but in any passage where שבי is written in association with מלקוח, the term שבי applies to men and מלקוח to cattle alone.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויצאו משה ואלעזר הכהן AND MOSES AND ELEAZAR THE PRIEST WENT FORTH, because they saw the young men of Israel going out to snatch the spoil (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויקצף משה על פקודי החיל AND MOSES WAS ANGRY WITH THE פקודי החיל — WITH THOSE APPOINTED OVER THE ARMY — This serves to teach you that every misdeed of a generation is attributed to the leaders since these have the power to protest (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

הן הנה BEHOLD, THESE [WERE AN ENTICEMENT TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — These: this word tells us that they recognised them, saying, ‘This is the woman through whom so-and-so fell into sin” (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 785).

בדבר בלעם [THESE WERE AN ENTICEMENT] THROUGH THE WORD OF BALAAM — He had said to them: Even if you bring together all the hosts that are in the world you cannot overcome them. Are you perhaps more numerous than the Egyptians who had six hundred chosen chariots? Come and I will give you counsel: Their God has a hatred of immorality, etc., as it is related in the chapter חלק (Sanhedrin 106a) and in Sifrei Bamidbar 157:6.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וכל אשה ידעת איש AND EVERY WOMAN WHO KNOWS MAN — i.e., who is fitted for cohabitation, even though she has never experienced it (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:6). As a test they made them (the women) pass in front of the Golden Plate, and if anyone was fitted for cohabitation her face turned green (Yevamot 60b).

הרגו [AND EVERY WOMAN THAT MAY KNOW MAN] … KILL — Why does it say this word again after having used it in the first half of the sentence? It is to show where the pause comes in the paragraph. So is the opinion of R. Ishmael (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:6). For if I read (omitting the word הֲרֹגוּ‎),‎ הרגו כל זכר בטף וכל אשה ידעת איש‎ ... וכל הטף בנשים וגו׳ ‎ “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones … and every woman … and all the little ones among the women … keep alive”, I would not know whether they were to kill “every woman” together with the “males among the little ones” or were to keep them alive together with the “little ones among the women’. On this account הרגו is stated (added) at the end of the verse.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מחוץ למחנה [AND ABIDE YE] OUTSIDE THE CAMP — This means that they should not enter the forecourt of the Sanctuary (the מחנה שכינה cf. Rashi on 5:2).

כל הרג נפש WHOSOEVER HATH KILLED A PERSON — Rabbi Meir said: Scripture is speaking of one who killed a person with a weapon receptive of uncleanness, and Scripture teaches you that “a vessel“ (any object) makes a man unclean through the connection thus formed with the corpse just as though he were actually in contact with the corpse itself. Or perhaps one might think that even though he had shot an arrow and killed him (in which case he was not “connected” by means of the arrow with the man he killed) he was to remain outside the camp as being unclean. It, however, says immediately afterwards “and whosoever hath touched anyone slain”; it compares the person who kills to one who touches a slain person. How is it in the case of one who touches a corpse? He becomes unclean in consequence of the connection with it! So, too, one who kills becomes unclean only through some connection with it (the corpse) (Sifrei Bamidbar 127:1 on Numbers 19:16).

תתחטאו PURIFY YOURSELVES by means of the waters of sprinkling, as is the law in the case of other people who have become unclean by reason of a corpse. For even according to the opinion of those who say that the graves of heathens do not render Israelites unclean if they are under the same tent (roof) with them (i.e. the graves), because it is said, (Ezekiel 34:31) “And ye, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men”, which is explained to mean: You alone come under the term “men” (Yevamot 61a) — even such will admit that the corpses of heathens render an Israelite unclean through contact with and through carrying them, because the term אדם, man, is only used in reference to uncleanness caused by a “tent”, since it states, (Numbers 19:14) “If a man (אדם) die in a tent".

אתם ושביכם [PURIFY] BOTH YOURSELVES AND YOUR CAPTIVES — Not that heathens are receptive of uncleanness and therefore require sprinkling, but such captives are intended as are of the same category as yourselves. What is the case with you yourselves? You are people in covenant with God! So, too, your captives when they come into the covenant with God, if they become unclean they require sprinkling (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:7).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וכל מעשה עזים AND EVERYTHING MADE FROM GOATS — everything: this serves to include objects made from the horns, claws and bones (Chullin 25b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויאמר אלעזר הכהן וגו׳ AND ELEAZAR THE PRIEST SAID etc. — Because Moses fell into anger (Numbers 31:14) he fell into error: there escaped him the laws concerning the removal of uncleanness absorbed by vessels which have contained the food of heathens. This, too, do you find was the case on the eighth day of the installing of the priests, as it is said, (Leviticus 10:16) “And Moses was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar”, — he fell into anger, he fell into error (cf. 10:16 that he made an error regarding the שעיר החטאת which Aaron refused to eat). Similarly, also, when he said, (Numbers 20:10, Numbers 20:11) “Hear, now, ye rebels”, … “he smote the rock”; it was through his anger that he made the mistake (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:9; cf. Pesachim 66b).

אשר צוה ה׳ וגו׳ [AND ELEAZAR SAID … THIS IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE LAW] WHICH THE LORD HATH COMMANDED [MOSES] — he associated the decision with his teacher (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 157:9).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אך את הזהב וגו׳ ONLY THE GOLD etc. — Eleazar said: Although Moses has only admonished you concerning the laws of uncleanness caused by contact with a corpse, you must further be admonished concerning the laws of removing anything unclean that has been absorbed by vessels. The word אך is a restrictive term — it is as much as to say, “You are restricted from using vessels even after they have been cleansed from uncleanness caused by reason of a corpse until they shall have been cleansed also from what they have absorbed of that flesh which is forbidden as being that of an animal not killed in the proper manner.” And our Rabbis said that the words אך את הזהב are intended to intimate that it is necessary to remove its rust before he does the rite of removing the forbidden food that has been absorbed. This, they say, is the purpose of the term אך, — that there should be no rust there: Only (אך) the metal — it shall be as it should be (the metal without anything else, such as rust) (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 785; Rabbenu Asher on Pesachim 30b states that this is to be found in Siphre, but it is missing in our editions of the work).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כל דבר אשר יבא באש ANYTHING THAT COMES ON THE FIRE, to boil something in it,

תעבירו באש YE SHALL PASS THROUGH THE FIRE — according to the manner in which it is used so is the manner in which it is cleansed from what has been absorbed: that vessel the use of which is by means of hot water he shall cleanse with hot water, and that which is used for roasted meat, as for instance, a spit and a grill, he shall make it white hot in the flame (Avodah Zarah 75b).

אך מי נדה יתחטא NEVERTHELESS IT SHALL BE PURIFIED WITH THE WATERS OF SPRINKLING — According to its plain sense this purification is to cleanse it from the uncleanness caused by a corpse. He said to them: the vessels require גיעול (the ceremony by which whatever has been absorbed will be given up) to cleanse them from the effect of having contained forbidden food, and also purification to cleanse them from the uncleanness caused by a corpse. But our Rabbis derived from here the law that in order to make them fit for use (to cleanse them entirely) from being forbidden, it (Scripture) made immersion in a ritual bath a requirement for metal vessels, and they explained the words מי נדה which are written here as denoting “waters that are proper for a נדה to immerse herself in”. And how much is that? Forty Seahs (Avodah Zarah 75b).

וכל אשר לא יבא באש AND ALL THAT DOTH NOT COME IN THE FIRE — i.e., everything which is not used on fire, as for instance, cups and flasks which are used with cold articles, and which, therefore, absorb no forbidden food,

תעבירו במים YE SHALL PASS THROUGH WATER — He immerses them and that is sufficient. This refers only to metal utensils (Avodah Zarah 75b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אל המחנה [YE SHALL BE CLEAN, AND AFTERWARDS] YE MAY COME INTO THE CAMP — into the camp where is the Divine Presence (מחנה שכינה), because a person unclean by reason of a corpse does not require expulsion from the camp of the Levites and the camp of the Israelites, (but only from the camp of the Shechina, and consequently the permission to come into the camp after purification must mean into the מחנה שכינה; Pesachim 67a; cf. Rashi on 5:2).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

שאו את ראש means, TAKE THE CENSUS.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וחצית את המלקוח בין תפשי המלחמה וגו׳ AND THOU SHALT DIVIDE THE PREY INTO TWO PARTS: BETWEEN THEM THAT TOOK THE WAR UPON THEMSELVES, etc. — half of it for these and half of it for those.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויהי המלקוח יתר הבז AND THE PREY, OVER AND ABOVE THE BOOTY … WAS [SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND etc.] — Because they had not been commanded (v. 28) to levy a tribute from the movables but only from the מלקוח (the men and cattle; cf. Rashi on v. 11) it (Scripture) writes this expression: ויהי המלקוח, that which came under the law of being divided (v. 27) and which also came under the law of tribute — which was over and above (יתר) the booty of the movables, אשר בזזו עם הצבא איש לו WHICH THE MEN OF THE HOST HAD PLUNDERED, EACH FOR HIMSELF, and which did not come under the law of being divided, — the number of sheep was etc. (i.e. צאן at the beginning of the second half of the verse means: the number of sheep).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וממחצית בני ישראל אשר חצה משה AND OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL’S HALF WHICH MOSES DIVIDED among the congregation and which he had taken for them, מן האנשים הצבאים FROM THE MEN THAT WARRED.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ותהי מחצית העדה THE CONGREGATION’S HALF WAS so-and-so in number (as stated in the second half of this verse and in vv. 44—46).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויקח משה וגו׳ AND MOSES TOOK [FROM THIS HALF OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL ONE PART OUT OF EACH FIFTY] etc.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

הפקדים means THOSE WHO WERE APPOINTED (not those who were counted, as e.g. in Numbers 3:39).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ולא נפקד means THERE IS NOT LACKING. Its translation in the Targum is לא שגא which, too, in the Aramaic language means “lacking”, just as the words (Genesis 31:39) אנכי אחטנה “I will make good the shortage”, are translated in the Targum by דהות שגיא ממנינא that which was lacking of the number (cf. Rashi on that verse), and so, too, is (I Samuel 20:18) “For thy seat יִפָּקֵד”, i.e., the place where you sat will lack the man who usually sat there. And similar is (I Samuel 20:15) “וַיִפָּקֵד the place of David” — his place lacked, and no man sat there.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אצעדה — These are BANDS FOR THE FOOT (anklets).

וצמיד are BANDS FOR THE HAND (bracelets).

עגיל are EARRINGS.

וכומז is an ornament in the form of the womb — to atone for the thoughts their hearts had entertained for the daughters of Midian (Shabbat 64a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

עטרות ודיבון וגו׳ ATOROTH AND DIBON etc. — These belonged to the land of Sihon and Og.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

האחיכם SHALL YOUR BRETHREN — This denotes a question. (i.e., the ה prefixed is the interrogative particle).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ולמה תניאון means AND WHY WILL YE TURN ASIDE AND WITHHOLD their heart from passing over? — because they will think that you are afraid to pass over on account of the prospect of war and the strength of the cities and the peoples.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מקדש ברנע FROM KADESH-BARNEA — this was its name. There were two places called Kadesh (therefore this one is distinguished from the other by being called Kadesh-Barnea).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

הקנזי [CALEB THE SON OF JEPHUNNEH] THE KENEZITE — He (Caleb) was the stepson of Kenaz (and therefore he is termed here the Kenezite), and Caleb's mother bore Othniel to him (to Kenaz) (and for this reason Othniel, the son of Kenaz is described in Joshua 15:17 as Caleb’s brother) (Sotah 11b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וינעם means, AND HE MOVED THEM ABOUT; the word is of the same root as נע in (Genesis 4:12) “a wanderer (נע) and a vagabond”.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לספות is similar in meaning to the verbs in (Isaiah 29:1): “add (ספו) year to year”; ( 7:21): “add (ספו) your burnt-offerings” — an expression denoting adding (The translation is: to add even more to the Lord’s fierce anger against Israel).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

נבנה למקננו פה WE WILL BUILD [SHEEP FOLDS] FOR OUR CATTLE HERE — They paid more regard to their property than to their sons and daughters, because they mentioned their cattle before their children. Moses said to them, “Not so! Make the chief thing the chief thing and what is subordinate subordinate. First build cities for your little ones and afterwards enclosures for your flocks” (cf. v. 24) (Midrash Tanchuma, Matot 7).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואנחנו נחלץ חשים means, AND WE SHALL ARM OURSELVES SPEEDILY, the last word being the same as in (Isaiah 8:3): “the spoil hasteth, the prey speedeth (חש)” and in (Isaiah 5:19), “Let Him make haste, let Him speed."

לפני בני ישראל BEFORE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL - i.e. at the head of the troops, because they were mighty men; for thus is it said of Gad, (Deuteronomy 30:20): “He teareth the arm, with the crown of the head”. Moses distinctly stated this to them in Sedrah אלה הדברים (Deuteronomy 3:18): “And I commanded you at that time … Ye shall pass over armed before the children of Israel, all ye men of valour”. And regarding the siege of Jericho it is written, (Joshua 6:13): “And the armed men (החלוץ) went before them”— this refers to the tribes of Reuben and Gad who thus fulfilled the conditions they had laid down.

וישב טפנו AND OUR LITTLE ONES SHALL STAY, so long as we are with our brethren waging war,

בערי המבצר IN THE FORTIFIED CITIES which we will now build (cf. v. 16 with v. 36).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מעבר לירדן וגו׳ ON THE SIDE OF THE JORDAN AND YONDER — i.e., on the western side.

כי באה נחלתנו FOR OUR INHERITANCE HAS COME [TO US] — This means: by that time we shall have already received it on the eastern side.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לצנאכם FOR YOUR SHEEP — This word is from the noun form which is found in (Psalms 8:8): “Sheep (צנה) and oxen, all of them”, where, too, there is no א intervening between the נ and the צ. The א which here comes after the נ is in place of the ה of צנה (and לצנאכם is not the same form as לצאנכם with an inversion of the א and נ). I learned this from the work of R. Moses the Preacher.

והיצא מפיכם תעשו AND DO THAT WHICH HATH GONE OUT FROM YOUR MOUTH, as a vow to the Most High God (cf. Numbers 30:3), because you have taken it upon yourselves to pass over for war until the end of the subjugation and division of the land; — for Moses asked of them only, (v. 22): “Let [the land] be subdued and afterwards ye may return”, but they undertook, (v. 18): “[we will not return to our houses] until [the children of Israel] have inherited”, so you see that they made an additional promise, to stay on the western side the seven years during which they were dividing the land. And so, indeed, they did (cf. Joshua XXII.).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויאמר בני גד AND THE CHILDREN OF GAD SAID, all of them as one man (ויאמר is the singular form of the verb, whilst the subject בגי גד is the plural; cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:2 s. v.).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

. ויצו להם AND HE GAVE CHARGE — This is the same as, and he gave charge concerning them. The words imply: and to watch over the fulfilment of the agreement they had made he appointed Eleazar and Joshua. The use of the ל in להם here is the same as in (Exodus 14:14): “The Lord will fight לכם for you."

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואתנו אחזת נחלתנו AND LET POSSESSION OF OUR INHERITANCE BE WITH US [ON THIS SIDE OF THE JORDAN] — it is as much as to say: (ואתנו) in our hands and in our ownership let the possession of our inheritance be on this side.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ערי מבצר וגדרת צאן FORTIFIED CITIES AND ENCLOSURES FOR SHEEP — This end of the verse is to be connected back with the beginning of the paragraph (v. 24): And the children of Gad built these cities to be fortified cities and enclosures for sheep.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואת נבו ואת בעל מעון מוסבת שם AND NEBO AND AND BAAL-MEON, THEIR NAMES BEING CHANGED — Nebo and Baal-Meon were names of idols, and the Ammonites used to call their cities by the names of their gods. The children of Reuben therefore changed their names into other names. This is the meaning of מוסבת שם: Nebo and Baal-Meon were changed to other names.

ואת שבמה AND SIBMAH — i.e., they built (cf. v. 37) Sibmah also. This is identical with Sebam that is mentioned above (v. 3).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויורש — Understand this as the Targum does “AND HE DROVE OUT”, for the expression ריש is used in two different meanings, in the sense of ירושה (the Kal), “inheriting”, and in the sense of הורשה (the Hiphil) which denotes driving away and expelling (see Rashi on Numbers 14:24).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

חותיהם This is rendered in the Targum by THEIR VILLAGES.

ויקרא אתהן חות יאיר AND HE CALLED THEM “THE VILLAGES OF JAIR” — Because he had no children, he named them after himself, as a memorial.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויקרא לה נבח AND HE CALLED IT NOBAH — The word לה has no Mappik in the ה (as the word לָהּ "to it", usually has). Now I have seen the following in the work of R. Moses the Preacher: Because this name did not remain permanently to it, therefore the letter ה is weak (without a Mappik), — the implication of his explanation being that it (the word לה) is the same as לא “not”. But I wonder what explanation he will give of the two words similar to it, (Ruth 2:14): “And Boaz said לָה", and (Zechariah 5:11): “to build a house לָה”.