Purifying Midianite Spoils – From What/2

Purifying Midianite Spoils – From What?

Exegetical Approaches

THIS TOPIC IS STILL UNDERGOING EDITORIAL REVIEW

Overview

Exegetes dispute both the nature of the laws of purification of utensils in Bemidbar 31 and what was unique about the war with Midyan that led to the transmitting of these additional laws. The Hoil Moshe maintains that the commands revolve solely on cleansing from the defilement of dead bodies, and he thus claims that Moshe did the same in other wars as well and that there was nothing unusual here. Others like Shadal suggest that there was a special impurity of idolatry related to the special religious character of the war, as the Midianites had lured the Israelites into worshiping Baal Peor. Most exegetes though, following Rabbinic interpretation, explain that the verses speak of impurity of non-Kosher cooking, and Ramban, adopting this position, explains that there had been a special dispensation which permitted this in previous battles.

Corpse Contamination

The utensils needed to be decontaminated because they came into contact with dead bodies.

Sources: Sifre MS Berlin 1594Mattot 157Mattot 158About Sifre,¹ perhaps Karaite CommentaryJQR 12, p. 294,² Option #1 in Ibn EzraBemidbar 31:21-23About R. Avraham ibn Ezra,³ Hoil MosheBemidbar 31:19,21,24About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

Immediate context – The immediate context of Elazar's instructions is purification from contact with dead bodies. Both Moshe's directive in verses 19-20 and the command in verse 24 speak of the seven day purification rite after contact with a corpse, suggesting that Elazar's words in the middle must also refer to the same topic.⁴

Role of Elazar vs. Moshe – This position must explain why Moshe and Elazar each relayed only part of the law rather than having one of them deliver all of the instructions.⁵

• Ibn Ezra suggests that Moshe directed the nation just in general terms, but then had Elazar, who was the expert on the red heifer procedure,⁶ explain the details.⁷
• According to the Sifre, Moshe's anger at the nation caused him to forget the law.

Relationship to laws of purity in Bemidbar 19 – The content and language of the command are very similar to that used by the laws of purity in Bemidbar 19, supporting the notion that both are referring to the same topic, purity from contact with a corpse.⁸ These commentators must explain, though, why the laws of Bemidbar 19 do not mention the passing through fire and water.⁹ Hoil Moshe asserts that the laws of Bemidbar 19 are incomplete,¹⁰ and only by combining the instructions there with those mentioned in this chapter can one can get a full picture of the law.¹¹

Why commanded specifically during the war with Midyan?

• Tangential mention – Hoil Moshe maintains that the law had actually been applied after earlier battles, but the Torah did not find it necessary to mention the fact. Only in this story when the text was already discussing Moshe's anger at the nation and his ensuing speech, did it also include his words regarding the laws of purification.
• First practical application – This position might alternatively assert, like Ramban below, that in the previous wars there actually was no problem of impurity since all of Israel participated in those wars¹² and "communal impurity is permitted". It is questionable, though, whether this applies when there is no time bound obligation involved.¹³

What type of utensils? The Karaite fragment emphasizes that the verses do not speak specifically of food utensils, and the inclusion of gold and silver amidst the list of metals more likely refers to jewelry than to pots or pans.¹⁴

"כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ" – According to the Karaite fragment and Hoil Moshe, this expression includes all materials which can withstand fire, rather than being limited only to something which is regularly used with fire (like pots or pans).

"בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא" – According to these commentators, this refers to purification by the liquid mixture of the ashes of the red heifer, as is implied by the term's usage in Bemidbar 19.

"תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם" – According to the Hoil Moshe, this is an additional directive beyond the sprinkling of "מֵי נִדָּה", but it is not clear whether it refers to immersion in boiling or cold water.¹⁵

Heathen Status

The objects required purification since they were owned by Gentiles or used for idolatry.

Sources: Perhaps: Damascus Document4Q271About the Damascus Document,¹⁶ Karaite CommentaryJQR 12 p. 294,¹⁷ Sifre MS Vatican 32Mattot 157Mattot 158About Sifre,¹⁸ Sifre ZutaBemidbar 31:23About Sifre Zuta,¹⁹ ShadalBemidbar 31:23About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto

Immediate context – Though Elazar's words are framed by laws dealing with purification from corpses, there are some indications which suggest that his speech might relate to a different topic. Verse 21 opens with both a new speaker (Elazar rather than Moshe) and a new audience ("אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא" rather than "פְּקוּדֵי הֶחָיִל"). In addition, Elazar begins his instructions with an introductory formula, "‏זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה'‏", suggesting that this is not a direct continuation of what came beforehand.

Role of Elazar vs. Moshe – This approach could easily propose that there are two speakers because each is meant to relay a different set of instructions. However, according to the Sifre, Moshe's earlier anger at the officers caused him to forget the law.

Relationship to laws of purity in Bemidbar 19 – Bemidbar 19 focuses on the laws of purity from contact with corpses, which Moshe alludes to in his command in verses 19-20. Elazar's directive in verses 21-23, though, has no relationship to that chapter at all and refers to a different purification ritual with its own laws and purpose.²⁰

Relationship to laws of idolatry in Devarim 7 – Devarim 7:25 is difficult for this approach, as it suggests that items used for idolatry are to be destroyed completely ("תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ"), not purified and then used.

• Idols vs. accessories – This approach might explain that the items mentioned here were not actual idols but rather accessories to idolatry or simply objects owned by idolaters with no explicit religious function.
• Both refer to purification by fire – Alternatively, perhaps the phrase "תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ" in Devarim 7 is equivalent to the words "תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ" here, and both simply refer to purifying by fire.²¹

Why commanded specifically during the war with Midyan?

• Ad hoc law relating to Midyan – According to Shadal, the law is specific to this war and not meant for future generations. Since the Midianites lured the nation into worship of Baal Peor through these items, they were prohibited from use by the nation until they underwent a process of purification.²²
• Context of spoils of war – The other commentators might explain that this was not really the first application of the law, but simply the first mention of it in the text. Only in this war was there a focus on the spoils of war, and in that context, the laws regrading purifying these spoils from idolatrous use were also mentioned.²³

What type of utensils? According to these commentators,²⁴ the vessels mentioned by Elazar are not limited to cooking utensils. According to the reconstructed text from the Damascus Document, the list refers to metals that were made into actual idols, while the Karaitic fragment and Shadal assert that the gold and silver are likely the women's jewelry.²⁵ Sifre Zuta also includes both purely decorative items and weapons of war.²⁶

"כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ" – According to the Karaitic fragment and Shadal, this refers to all items which can withstand fire (and thus is not limited to cooking utensils, but rather includes all metals), while according to the Sifre and Sifre Zuta it refers to vessels used with fire. Other vessels, even metal ones, are to be passed instead through water.²⁷

"בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא"

• Decontamination from corpse – According to the Damascus Document, Sifre Zuta, and Shadal, this refers to the additional purification from contact with corpses via the ashes of the red heifer.²⁸ Elazar is warning the people that they should not think that the new purification makes the other unnecessary; rather both are needed.²⁹
• Purification from Heathens – Alternatively, this position could suggest that this is another part of the process of purification from idolatry (and unconnected to corpses). Later prophets refer to the idolatrous nation as contaminating the land "כְּטֻמְאַת הַנִּדָּה" and assert that their purification will come by throwing upon them "pure water".³⁰ This is perhaps not simply a metaphor for purification, but a description of the actual process.

"תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם" – According to Sifre and Sifre Zuta, this directive is part of the process of purification from idolatry, though it is unclear whether it refers to immersion in cold or boiling water. The other commentators might agree,³¹ but could also suggest that the phrase is parallel to the earlier, "בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא", and refers to purification from contact with corpses.³² If so, Elazar was introducing a law of purification from heathen contact that applied to metals only. Thus, he clarified that the materials spoken of by Moshe, in contrast, merely needed to be decontaminated from contact with death via sprinkling with the water/ashes of the red heifer.³³

Non-Kosher Substances

The vessels needed to be purged of any residue from non-kosher foods.

Sources: Sifre MS Oxford 24 and MS London 16406Mattot 157Mattot 158About Sifre,³⁴ perhaps Sifre ZutaBemidbar 31:23About Sifre Zuta,³⁵ BavliAvodah Zarah 75bAbout the Bavli, Targum Pseudo-JonathanBemidbar 31:19-24About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, RashiBemidbar 31:21-23About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamBemidbar 31:23About R. Shemuel b. Meir R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 31:23About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambanBemidbar 31:23About R. Moshe Nachmanides, AbarbanelBemidbar 31About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,

Immediate context – Although the laws relating to purification from a corpse sandwich Elazar's words, this approach asserts that he is nonetheless speaking about a different issue, the laws of purging non-kosher taste from the walls of vessels. Like above, the fact that there is a new speaker and audience might support the idea that there is a change of topic as well.

Role of Elazar vs. Moshe – As above, the switch in speaker might be explained by the fact that the two are telling the nation different sets of laws. Sifre and Rashi assert that though Moshe could have taught both procedures, his anger at the way the war was conducted led him to forget the law.³⁶

Relationship to laws of purity in Bemidbar 19 – The laws of purging residual non-kosher taste are totally distinct from the laws of purity. They thus have their own set procedure which does not overlap with that of Bemidbar 19.³⁷

Why commanded specifically during the war with Midyan? Ramban suggests that this was the first practical application of the law. The previous battles against Sichon and Og were part of the wars of conquest,³⁸ and as such had certain unique dispensations. Since the conquered land became part of the inheritance of Israel, all the spoils of war (even the non-kosher vessels) were permitted to them, without need for any purification.³⁹

What type of utensils? According to these commentators,⁴⁰ the verses refer only to cooking utensils. This, though, is not the simple sense of the verses which mention just the materials used to make the vessels and not their function.⁴¹

"כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ" – Most of these commentators⁴² assert that this refers to the way that the vessel was used. If the non-kosher taste was absorbed via fire, it needs to be purged through fire.⁴³

"בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא" – The meaning of this phrase is a major point of dispute amongst these commentators:

• Purification from contact with a corpse – Sifre, Sifre Zuta, Rashi,⁴⁴ and Abarbanel⁴⁵ all explain that the phrase refers to the water of the ashes of the red heifer used for purification from contact with a coprse. Elazar is telling the nation, that the kashering process alone is not enough to permit the vessels for use; they also need to be purified from contact with the dead. This preserves the connotation of the phrase "מֵי נִדָּה" in its earlier appearances in Bemidbar 19.
• Immersion in a ritual bath – Bavli, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, and Ramban⁴⁶ claim instead that this phrase is speaking of water in which a woman who is a "נִדָּה" (in a state of ritual impurity) immerses herself.⁴⁷ Elazar is telling the nation that in addition to purging vessels of non-kosher taste, vessels made of metal also need to be immersed in a ritual bath before use.⁴⁸ This is the source for the Rabbinic law of טבילת כלים.

"תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם"

• Purging of non-kosher residue – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Ramban, and Abarbanel all maintain that this refers to the method of kashering substances that "do not go through fire". While R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Abarbanel assert that it includes all purging done by water – either through boiling⁴⁹ or by cold water,⁵⁰ Ramban maintains that it only refers to cleansing in cold water.⁵¹
• Immersion in ritual bath – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Rashi, in contrast, suggest that this phrase is equivalent to the clause "בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא" found in the first half of the verse, and refers not to cleansing items from non-kosher taste,⁵² but to immersing them in a ritual bath.⁵³

¹ Manuscripts of the Sifre differ regarding the explanation for the requirement to pass the utensils through fire or water, and this variation is critical for determining the Sifre's position. Three of the versions are: "מפני גוית/גויות גוים" (MS Berlin 1594), "מפני גיעולי גוים" (MS Oxford 24 and MS London 16406), or "מפני גיות גוים" (MS Vatican 32). [For data on other textual witnesses of the Sifre, see V. Noam, ‏"תעבירו באש (במ' ל"א:כ"ג) – לקדמותו של מסורת פרשנית"‏‎, Shenaton LeHeker HaMikra VeHaMizrah HaKadum 19 (2009): 135, n. 32.] See also the version "מפני כויות/כויית הגוים" in the citation of the Sifre found in some mss. (e.g. Paris 220,224, Fulda 2) of Ramban's commentary to Bemidbar 31:23, and a combination found in other mss. of Ramban's commentary (e.g. Paris 219): "תעבירו באש, כגון הסכינין מפני כוית הגוים, וכל אשר לא יבא באש, כגון הכוסות, תעבירו במים מפני גיעול הגוים".

The previous section of the Sifre deals with the ability of "הרוגי מדין" to impart impurity to vessels, and this supports the reading of "גְוִיוֹת גוים". According to this, the entire Sifre is dealing with the same issue, purification from a corpse. On the other hand, when listing the vessels to be purified, the Sifre lists only cooking utensils, which is perhaps what led to the reading of "גיעולי גוים" and the possibility that the Sifre is speaking of laws of kashrut. [The combination which appears in some mss. of Ramban might differentiate between "כוית הגוים" and "גיעול הגוים" to match the different modes of kashering, by firing/burning or by boiling.] The reading of "גיות גוים" apparently suggests that the purification is due to contact with Gentiles themselves.

² The fragment was published by J. Mann in his article, "A Tract by an Early Karaite Settler in Jerusalem", JQR 12 (1922): 257-298. He suggests that it might have formed part of Daniel al-Kumisi's commentary to Bemidbar. Due to the fragmented nature of the document it is hard to discern the full Karaitic position. The fragment explicitly opposes the position of the "מתאוננים", referring to the Rabbinic tradition which assumes that the verses are speaking of the purging of non-kosher taste from the vessels. It is unclear, though, if the Karaite maintains that the verses are speaking only of purification from dead bodies or of purification from idolatry/gentile contact as well. On one hand the fragment consistently refers to the vessels as "כלי גוים" suggesting that this is the reason behind the need for purification. On the other hand, a seven day period of impurity is mentioned and the word "מת" appears. [The surrounding words are missing, though, making the context unclear.]

³ At the end of Ibn Ezra's comments, he brings the opinion of Chazal and writes, "דעתם רחבה מדעתנו", effectively dismissing his own initial reading in favor of that of the sages. Nonetheless, the rejected opinion is a valid possibility in reading the verses.

⁴ This point is probably, in part, what motivates this approach.

⁵ Though all commentators will have to deal with the split in delivery between the two leaders, the question is especially difficult for this position, as it maintains that both Moshe and Elazar were speaking about the same topic.

⁶ In Bemidbar 19, Elazar is the one who is charged with preparing the ashes.

⁷ He does not explain why Moshe focuses specifically on clothing and other wooden and leather items whereas Elazar focuses on metal ones.

⁸ See the table in the Introduction. Both sets of laws mention a seven day period of impurity, purification on both the third and seventh days, purification via "מֵי נִדָּה", and cleansing of clothing. It should be noted, though, that a couple of the parallels relate to Moshe's instructions in verses 19-20, and to verse 24, which all agree are speaking about impurity of a corpse.

⁹ See below that, according to Ramban, it is this discrepancy between the procedures which led Chazal to conclude that Elazar's words could not be referring to purification from contact with the dead, but must be speaking of something else.

¹⁰ It should be noted that he gives a different explanation for the difference in law regarding the sending of impure people out of the camp (mentioned only here and not in Bemidbar 24). He suggests that Bemidbar 19 contained only the laws that applied to all generations, while this law applied only in the desert. This distinction is typical of the manner in which Hoil Moshe deals with contradictions between different laws or between peshat and derash. For more about his methodology, see About Hoil Moshe.

¹¹ He maintains that certain laws were not written down fully, but were rather relayed orally only to the elders for implementation at a later time. See Hoil Moshe on Bemidbar 30:2 where he similarly suggests that the right of a court/leader to nullify vows, though not mentioned in the Torah, was relayed by Moshe to the leaders in private. See also his comments on Vayikra 16:8, "ומי יודע מה דבר הורה משה רבנו בעל פה לנשיאי העדה וזקניה להודיע לבאים אחריהם בהתחלף מצב האומה ואמונותיה".

¹² This is in contrast to the war against Midyan in which only one thousand men per tribe fought.

¹³ Normally the leniency applies to bringing sacrifices which are time bound. If there is no time limit, though, all agree that one should only bring the sacrifice after a process of purification. So too, here, one might assume that as there was no necessity to use the spoils of war immediately, the collective character of the impurity should not have sufficed to annul the need for purification.

¹⁴ It is for this reason that the Karaite commentary rejects the possibility that the verses are referring to purging utensils of the traces of non-kosher foods.

¹⁵ This position could have instead suggested that the command is parallel to the earlier directive to purify via "מֵי נִדָּה". If so, Elazar would be introducing merely one new law beyond what is known from Bemidbar 19, that metal utensils need to be passed through fire in addition to being sprinkled. Other vessels, though, can suffice with a sprinkling of "מֵי נִדָּה".

¹⁶ Click here to view a picture of the Qumran fragment. It should be noted that the text is very fragmentary, and that the critical line which speaks of purification from idolatry ("ומכו[ל] הזהב והכסף [והנחושת וה]בדיל והעו[פרת אשר עשו הגואים פ]סל") is missing from the fragment and is mostly a conjectured reconstruction of the text.

¹⁷ See the note above regarding the fragment and its ambiguity.

¹⁸ See the note above regarding the different textual witnesses of the Sifre.

¹⁹ The Sifre Zuta's position is also not clear. The source contains language that relates to laws of kashrut such as "בליעה" and "הגעלה", yet its enumeration of the vessels referred to in the verse include many non-cooking utensils.

²⁰ Thus, there should be no expectation that the laws would be the same.

²¹ Devarim, then, is only prohibiting taking into one's possession idols which have not passed through fire at all.

²² As the whole point of this war was revenge for the women's role in leading the nation into sin, it is logical that specifically here there should be a stringency.

²³ Cf. Hoil Moshe above who also explains that the command is only mentioned in a tangential context.

²⁴ Sifre is the sole exception and lists only cooking utensils. The source, though, does not explicitly limit the law to such items; it simply does not mention others by name.

²⁵ Shadal implies that it is very unlikely that the Midianite pots and pans would have been made of such precious metals.

²⁶ See also the YerushalmiAvodah Zarah 5:15About the Yerushalmi which mentions a bar of silver which is not a vessel at all.

²⁷ There is thus a difference in the practical law between the Tannaitic and other sources. According to Shadal, jewelry would need to pass through fire, while according to Sifre Zuta it must instead be immersed in water. It is not clear from the Tannaitic sources what is the rationale for the divide.

²⁸ As above, the meaning of the term is identical to its meaning in Bemidbar 19.

²⁹ The word "אַךְ" means "but, nonetheless".

³⁰ See Yechezkel 36:17-18 and 25, and similarly, Ezra 9:11-12.

³¹ If so, according to them, Elazar is saying that non-metal items too, like those listed by Moshe, need to be purified, but in water rather than fire, as they would not survive otherwise.

³² One might argue against this that the language of תַּעֲבִירוּ suggests an immersion in water rather than a sprinkling.

³³ Alternatively, if one understands the sprinkling to be another part of the process of purification from idolaters, then Elazar is saying metals required both passing through fire and sprinkling to be decontaminated, while non-metals require only sprinkling.

³⁴ See above note about the different versions of the Sifre and the ensuing difficulty regarding its proper categorization.

³⁵ See above note about the difficulty in categorizing this source.

³⁶ Alternatively, since Elazar also touches on the laws of impurity (in verse 24, and according to some of these commentators when reminding the nation "בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא" - see below), Abarbanel suggests that Moshe spoke in general terms and let Elazar who was in charge of the red heifer procedure, fill in the details and accompanying laws of kashrut. Cf. Ibn Ezra above.

³⁷ In fact, Ramban argues that the differences between the laws and the mention of passing through fire only in Bemidbar 31 is one of the main reasons to reject the position that Elazar is simply speaking about purification from contact with corpses.

³⁸ The war against Midyan, in contrast, was a war of revenge.

³⁹ Ramban bases this on the verse in Devarim 6 which states that the nation will come to the land and find: "וּבָתִּים מְלֵאִים כָּל טוּב אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִלֵּאתָ וּבֹרֹת חֲצוּבִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא חָצַבְתָּ כְּרָמִים וְזֵיתִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא נָטָעְתָּ וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ". He adds that the difference between the two wars can also explain why only in the Midianite war did Moshe need to tell the impure men to separate from the camp. Since all of Israel participated in the war against Sichon (but not in the campaign against Midyan), impurity was not an issue, as impurity is permitted when it affects the entire congregation. Alternatively, there was simply no practical need to separate since there was nobody to contaminate as all were already impure.

⁴⁰ Sifre Zuta is an exception; see the approach above and the notes there.

⁴¹ There is, thus, no reason to assume that the verses are limited to pots, pans, and the like. See Shadal above who rejects this position on these grounds. This approach, though, might be trying to find a common denominator between the vessels mentioned by Moshe versus those mentioned by Elazar. As clothing and leather items would not be used for cooking, but metal vessels would, this categorization could possibly explain why each leader dealt with the specific items he did.

⁴² Abarbanel, in contrast, maintains that it refers to any vessel which can be fixed through fire, i.e. it is able to withstand the high temperature.

⁴³ The commentators differ, though, regarding whether this includes vessels used on a fire for boiling. Rashi and Ramban assert that it does, while R. Yosef Bekhor Shor disagrees.

⁴⁴ In his "לפי פשוטו" explanation.

⁴⁵ Abarbanel is somewhat ambiguous, as he explains the phrase to refer to the ashes of the red heifer, but also maintains that the vessels need to be immersed in a ritual bath.

⁴⁶ Note, though, that Ramban writes, "ולבי מהרהר עוד, לומר שהטבילה הזו מדבריהם והמקרא אסמכתא עשו אותו".

⁴⁷ This is in contrast to the usage of the phrase in Bemidbar 19.

⁴⁸ Ramban points out that although the phrase is mentioned in reference only to vessels that "have passed through fire", it also refers to those which are made kosher instead by "passing through water". See note below.

⁴⁹ This is for vessels in which taste was absorbed through boiling.

⁵⁰ This would suffice for any utensil that had been used for only cold food.

⁵¹ According to him, boiling was included in the first directive regarding "items which passed through fire". See above note regarding "כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ" for how all three commentators are consistent in their explanations.

⁵² Since they maintain that the items referred to were used only with cold food, there is no need to mention any process of purging. Ramban argues that they nonetheless need washing of any residue. Rashi would agree that such a step is necessary, but would probably assert that since it is obvious that one cannot eat actual non-kosher food, the verse does not need to say this explicitly.

⁵³ A simple reading of the verse would suggest that the phrase "בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא" refers only to items which "have passed through fire" and not others, as it appears only in the first half of the verse. Thus, these exegetes suggest that a parallel phrase ("תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם") comes in the second half of the verse to teach about immersion for all other vessels as well. The other commentators could explain, like Ramban, that the original directive, "בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא", referred to all vessels even if only mentioned in the context of those which "pass through fire". The text simply did not bother to repeat this fact since the law of immersion is the same for all metal vessels regardless of the method of purging.