וְהִכִּיתֶ֞ם כָּל־עִ֤יר מִבְצָר֙ וְכָל־עִ֣יר מִבְח֔וֹר וְכָל־עֵ֥ץ טוֹב֙ תַּפִּ֔ילוּ וְכָל־מַעְיְנֵי־מַ֖יִם תִּסְתֹּ֑מוּ וְכֹל֙ הַחֶלְקָ֣ה הַטּוֹבָ֔ה תַּכְאִ֖בוּ בָּאֲבָנִֽים׃
Kamu akan memukul kalah setiap kota berkubu dan setiap kota pilihan. Kamu akan menebang setiap pohon yang baik, menyumbat semua mata air, dan merusak setiap ladang yang baik dengan batu-batu.”
Ramban
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.64Ibid., 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;65Verse 3. therefore they chose those men who were known amongst their tribes as righteous men.66See Deuteronomy 1:13. Now Moses did not command them what to do, but merely told them to execute the vengeance of the Eternal on Midian,65Verse 3. and he thought that they would let none of them remain or escape,67Joshua 8:22. 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.68Leviticus 20:15. And when he saw that the people wanted [to keep] the spoil, he remitted [and allowed them to keep] the female children69Further, Verse 18. and the spoil.70Ibid., 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,71Above, 25:17, and Verse 2 of this Chapter. [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 towns72Deuteronomy 3:5. and fell every good tree, and stop all fountains of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones73II Kings 3:19. 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,74Thus, according to this second explanation, Moses originally did not command them to destroy everything, but only to harass the Midianites 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 children75Verse 17. was an [additional measure of] retributive punishment.
Now Moses was wroth with the officers of the host76Verse 14. but showed honor to Phinehas [by not criticizing him, too], because G-d had given unto him His covenant of peace.77Above, 25:12. And in the Sifre we are taught:78Sifre, Matoth 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!79I Samuel 13:14. 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,65Verse 3. 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.80Deuteronomy 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. 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.,81Verse 16. and he added [the command to kill] every male among the little ones75Verse 17. in order to complete the retribution.
It is also possible to explain that Moses was [only] commanded to Harass the Midianites, and Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites,71Above, 25:17, and Verse 2 of this Chapter. [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 towns72Deuteronomy 3:5. and fell every good tree, and stop all fountains of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones73II Kings 3:19. 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,74Thus, according to this second explanation, Moses originally did not command them to destroy everything, but only to harass the Midianites 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 children75Verse 17. was an [additional measure of] retributive punishment.
Now Moses was wroth with the officers of the host76Verse 14. but showed honor to Phinehas [by not criticizing him, too], because G-d had given unto him His covenant of peace.77Above, 25:12. And in the Sifre we are taught:78Sifre, Matoth 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!79I Samuel 13:14. 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,65Verse 3. 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.80Deuteronomy 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. 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.,81Verse 16. and he added [the command to kill] every male among the little ones75Verse 17. in order to complete the retribution.
Chizkuni
לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם, “do not seek their peace nor their prosperity.” If you will be engaged in war with them it is a duty for you to destroy their cities and property including any fruitbearing trees inside their territory. We find this spelled out by the prophet Elisha in Kings II 3,19 when the Israelites were ordered to attack Moav after the latter had ceased paying taxes to the Kingdom of Israel. This treatment of the Moabites is in direct contrast to other expansionary wars when felling fruit bearing trees is strictly forbidden. Neither were the Israelites at the time allowed to offer peace to the Ammonites or to the Moabites if they decided that they had no other option. (Compare Deuteronomy 20,10 and 19)
Tosafot Yom Tov
INCREASES WORMS. Rav: in the grave, where a worm is as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living. Midrash Shmuel in the name of R. Yosef ibn Shoshan: not that they were of the opinion that the corpse feels anything, but that anyone of refined mind should be pained during his life by the disgrace that will come at his death, and should attempt to minimize this disgrace and imagine while he is still alive that he feels the worm that will bite him upon his death, which is the same feeling as a needle in live flesh. He will then minimize this disgrace and not increase his flesh because this increases worms. I cannot understand what complaint a living person could have about the disgrace he may suffer when he has been brought to burial and submerged in dirt, where nobody sees or knows anything about whether a worm rules over him or a maggot eats him. There is nothing disgraceful about a disgrace that nobody is witness to, all the more so since the disgraced one is dead and knows nothing of this disgrace. For what reason, then, should the thought of this pain a person while he lives?
Their words, however, were truly spoken: it is painful for the dead person [Heb. met] himself. Not because they believed that he has sensation and turned non-existent things into existing ones, but because the pain they spoke of is the pain of the dead person’s soul, which is still in existence and which beholds the disgrace of the body and is greatly pained by it; even the non-Jewish sages have agreed that the soul remains after death. This is the meaning of the verse in Job, 14:22: “Only his flesh shall pain [Heb. yich’av] him, and his soul mourn over him,” per Ibn Ezra’s commentary ad loc.: yich’av here has the sense of destruction, as in “you will destroy [Heb. tach’ivu] every good piece of land with stones” (2 Kings 3:19). The word was borrowed for unfeeling objects, for whom destruction is like pain for a person. The verse explains that the soul will indeed be in mourning on account of the pain it feels at seeing and recognizing the body in which it once was. [*And it is on the basis of this verse that one opinion in Shabbat 152b holds that as long as the flesh has not decomposed, the dead know whatever is said before them.] This is what they meant when they said that the worm is painful to the dead person, i.e. to the soul that knows of this. We can further deduce that this is what they meant because in speaking of the dead person they didn’t mention “flesh” and in speaking of the living one they said “the flesh of the living.” They should have used the same expression, saying either “like a needle in the living” or “in the flesh of the dead,” but they did not do so because they hold that the pain is felt by the dead person himself, i.e. his soul, and not his flesh, which feels nothing.
You shouldn’t find it odd that the soul is called met, “the dead,” for we find the Torah using the word this way in the verse “or one who consults the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:11), which obviously refers to the souls of the dead. Since this consultation occurs where the bodies of the dead are located it is called “consulting the dead,” even though the consultation is actually with the souls of those bodies. In our case the pain is similarly said to affect the dead, even though it is the souls that are pained, because the act that brings about the pain of the soul is done to the body. This is what seems correct to me.
[*I later found that Kol Bo writes in Hilchot Avel that the reason for burying the dead is that the soul is pained when it beholds the body in disgrace and lying about unburied, and says: they had the same idea in mind when they said “the worm is as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living,” which is a parallel only in terms of the existence of pain, not what type of pain it is. I also found that Rashba in responsum 1:369 considers it obvious that the dead do not feel the pain of the knife, and cites the embalming process as proof.]
Their words, however, were truly spoken: it is painful for the dead person [Heb. met] himself. Not because they believed that he has sensation and turned non-existent things into existing ones, but because the pain they spoke of is the pain of the dead person’s soul, which is still in existence and which beholds the disgrace of the body and is greatly pained by it; even the non-Jewish sages have agreed that the soul remains after death. This is the meaning of the verse in Job, 14:22: “Only his flesh shall pain [Heb. yich’av] him, and his soul mourn over him,” per Ibn Ezra’s commentary ad loc.: yich’av here has the sense of destruction, as in “you will destroy [Heb. tach’ivu] every good piece of land with stones” (2 Kings 3:19). The word was borrowed for unfeeling objects, for whom destruction is like pain for a person. The verse explains that the soul will indeed be in mourning on account of the pain it feels at seeing and recognizing the body in which it once was. [*And it is on the basis of this verse that one opinion in Shabbat 152b holds that as long as the flesh has not decomposed, the dead know whatever is said before them.] This is what they meant when they said that the worm is painful to the dead person, i.e. to the soul that knows of this. We can further deduce that this is what they meant because in speaking of the dead person they didn’t mention “flesh” and in speaking of the living one they said “the flesh of the living.” They should have used the same expression, saying either “like a needle in the living” or “in the flesh of the dead,” but they did not do so because they hold that the pain is felt by the dead person himself, i.e. his soul, and not his flesh, which feels nothing.
You shouldn’t find it odd that the soul is called met, “the dead,” for we find the Torah using the word this way in the verse “or one who consults the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:11), which obviously refers to the souls of the dead. Since this consultation occurs where the bodies of the dead are located it is called “consulting the dead,” even though the consultation is actually with the souls of those bodies. In our case the pain is similarly said to affect the dead, even though it is the souls that are pained, because the act that brings about the pain of the soul is done to the body. This is what seems correct to me.
[*I later found that Kol Bo writes in Hilchot Avel that the reason for burying the dead is that the soul is pained when it beholds the body in disgrace and lying about unburied, and says: they had the same idea in mind when they said “the worm is as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living,” which is a parallel only in terms of the existence of pain, not what type of pain it is. I also found that Rashba in responsum 1:369 considers it obvious that the dead do not feel the pain of the knife, and cites the embalming process as proof.]