Commentaire sur Les Nombres 31:19

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).

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.⁸²The 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, 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].⁸³Verse 19. 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,⁸⁴This 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. 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,”⁸⁵See above, Seder Chukath, 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 taught⁸⁶Above 19:16. See Ramban there. 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,⁸²The 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, 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.⁸⁷Literally: “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 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:⁸⁸Sifre, Chukath 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“And whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain. 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,⁹⁰This is known as tumath heset — “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,⁹¹In other words, Rabbi Meir’s statement [quoted by Rashi] does not refer to a vessel 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:⁸⁸Sifre, Chukath 127. “Whence do we know that it [a corpse] conveys impurity by shaking it? You make use of a kal vachomer:⁹²The syllogism of “a minor and major” [a fortiori 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:⁹¹In other words, Rabbi Meir’s statement [quoted by Rashi] does not refer to a vessel 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 vachomer⁹²The syllogism of “a minor and major” [a fortiori 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,⁹³Literally: “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 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,⁹³Literally: “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 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 vachomer⁹²The syllogism of “a minor and major” [a fortiori argument]. See Ramban, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208. [from dead animals], as is stated in Tractate Baba Kamma, Chapter Keitzad Haregel.⁹⁴Baba 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, although Rabbi Meir’s name is not specifically mentioned.

ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה...אתם ושביכם, ”as for you, encamp outside the camp, etc., you and your captives.” Also the captives were required to purify their garments that might have been in contact with the people slain during that campaign [after they were dead, of course. Ed.] All the clothing or vessels made of cloth or hide that were in their possession was subject to the same halachic restrictions as if they had belonged to Israelites in the first place. This was in order that these possessions in turn should not be capable of contaminating things belonging to the Israelites. This verse enables us to answer the question raised by everybody, why, after the wars against Sichon and Og when an immense amount of loot was captured, did Moses not already command these procedures of purification that the loot had to undergo. Granted that seeing those nations had been part of the seven Canaanite nations, concerning which in the wars against them even pig’s meat had become permitted, there was no need to purify their pots if even the contents of these pots had been permitted. (Compare ואכלת את שלל אויביך, “you may eat the loot captured from your enemies” Deut. 20,14). The Midianites not being Canaanites, the relaxation of these rules of ritual contamination did not apply to them. Yet another answer to the question raised above, technical in nature, is that when such captured vessels have not been used for over 24 hours, any residue of food remaining in them is presumed to have become repulsive and certainly would not enhance the taste of anything cooked or baked in them now. Therefore, anyone eating from such vessels would not derive any benefit from the forbidden ingredients, the principal reason why these are forbidden. In this instance, the survivors who had been taken prisoners, had still been using their vessels on the way to where the Israelites were encamped, so that the fact that the remnants of food therein had already made the vessels repulsive did not apply. This is also why the Torah did not have to warn that anyone touching a dead body had become ritually contaminated and required seven days of remaining outside the camp of the Levites while undergoing purification rites. This law was well known, but seeing that this legislation was applied for the first time to gentiles, (captives) the Torah reiterated the laws [so that the gentiles would not feel discriminated against? Ed.] Seeing that only 2% of the people had been involved in the campaign it was important to issue the warning that they must not come into contact with their families until after they had completed the purification rites. The reason why these restrictions were not announced in the wars against Sichon and Og, was that when most or all the people have become ritually contaminated many laws of ritual contamination do not apply. [How can you exile most of the population from their homes for a week? Ed.] Seeing that in this instance only 2% of the arms-bearing men took part, things were different.

ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה, “as for you, encamp outside the camp, etc.” The returning soldiers were forbidden to enter the courtyard of the Tabernacle in their present condition out of regard for the Shechinah which was present there.

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.

V. 19. ואתם וגו׳ (siehe Kap. 5, 2 u. 3 und 19, 11 f.). אתם ושביכם. Als נכריות konnten die Gefangenen nicht מקבל טומאה sein. טומאה beginnt erst mit der Beziehung des Menschen zum jüdischen Gesetzesheiligtum, zu שביכם .מקדש וקדשיו, die Gefangenen wurden daher erst טומאה-empfänglich לאחר שנתגיירו, ein Akt, der bei vielen sofort geschehen sein konnte. Da ferner כלי מתכות, nach einer Auffassung sogar alle בלים mit Ausschluss von כלי חרס, durch Berührung einer Leiche אבי אבות werden und den Menschen, der sie berührt, zum הזיה-bedürftigen אב הטומאה machen, so konnten שביכם, nachdem sie גרים geworden waren, durch Berührung eines solchen כלי der הזיה bedürftig geworden sein.

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

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).

YE AND YOUR CAPTIVES. [This means that] the captives also have to purify their garments⁹⁵Since 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?’ 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 skin⁹⁶Verse 20. 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.

כל הורג נפש, “anyone who had killed a person, etc.” it was presumed that he had touched the slain person with his weapon, seeing that the sword confers the same degree of ritual impurity as the corpse itself. The verse therefore excludes people who had killed by shooting arrows and had not subsequently touched the corpse (Sifri Chukat 127).

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?

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

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".

תתחטאו, “purify yourselves!” By means of the ash of the red cow mixed with the water designated for the procedure. Although Gentiles (their corpses) do not confer ritual impurity on a Jew when both are in the same covered airspace at the same time, contact with the corpse of a Gentile does transfer such impurity.

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.”

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

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).

אתם ושביכם, “you and your captives.” When the captives would become proselytes and they become ritually impure they require purification rites including being sprinkled with the ash of the red cow.

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.