Chumashחומש

ראשי המטות. חָלַק כָּבוֹד לַנְּשִׂיאִים לְלַמְּדָם תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ לְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף שְׁאָר הַדִּבְּרוֹת כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שמות ל"ד) "וַיָּשֻׁבוּ אֵלָיו אַהֲרֹן וְכָל הַנְּשִׂאִים בָּעֵדָה וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֲלֵהֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן נִגְּשׁוּ כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל". וּמָה רָאָה לְאָמְרָהּ כָּאן? לִמֵּד שֶׁהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים בְּיָחִיד מֻמְחֶה, וְאִם אֵין יָחִיד מֻמְחֶה, מֵפֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת; אוֹ יָכוֹל שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר מֹשֶׁה פָרָשָׁה זוֹ אֶלָּא לַנְּשִׂיאִים בִּלְבַד? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן "זֶה הַדָּבָר" וְנֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ (ויקרא י"ז) "זֶה הַדָּבָר", מַה לְּהַלָּן נֶאֶמְרָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו וּלְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן" וְגוֹ' — אַף זוֹ נֶאֶמְרָה לְכֻלָּן (ספרי; נדרים ע"ח):

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. מֹשֶׁה נִתְנַבֵּא בְּ"כֹה אָמַר ה' כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה" (שמות י"א) וְהַנְּבִיאִים נִתְנַבְּאוּ בְּ"כֹה אָמַר ה'", מוּסָף עֲלֵיהֶם מֹשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְנַבֵּא בִּלְשׁוֹן "זֶה הַדָּבָר". דָּ"אַ — זה הדבר מִעוּט הוּא, לוֹמַר שֶׁהֶחָכָם בִּלְשׁוֹן הַתָּרָה, וּבַעַל בִּלְשׁוֹן הֲפָרָה, כִּלְשׁוֹן הַכָּתוּב כָּאן, וְאִם חִלְּפוּ — אֵין מֻתָּר וְאֵין מוּפָר (ספרי; נדרים ע"ז):

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).

נדר. הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי קוֹנָם שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא אֶעֱשֶׂה דָבָר פְּלוֹנִי; יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁבַּע שֶׁיֹּאכַל נְבֵלוֹת אֲנִי קוֹרֵא עָלָיו כְּכָל הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה? תַּ"ל לאסר אסר — לֶאֱסֹר אֶת הַמֻּתָּר וְלֹא לְהַתִּיר אֶת הָאָסוּר (ספרי):

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. כְּמוֹ לֹא יְחַלֵּל דְּבָרוֹ — לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה דְּבָרוֹ חֻלִּין (שם):

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).

בבית אביה. בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ וַאֲפִלּוּ אֵינָהּ בְּבֵיתוֹ (שם):

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).

בנעריה. וְלֹא קְטַנָּה וְלֹא בוֹגֶרֶת, שֶׁהַקְּטַנָּה אֵין נִדְרָהּ נֶדֶר, וְהַבּוֹגֶרֶת אֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיהָ לְהָפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ; וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא קְטַנָּה? אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בַּת י"א שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד נְדָרֶיהָ נִבְדָּקִין, אִם יָדְעָה לְשֵׁם מִי נָדְרָה וּלְשֵׁם מִי הִקְדִּישָׁה, נִדְרָהּ נֶדֶר, בַּת י"ב שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לִבָּדֵק:

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).

ואם הניא אביה אתה. אִם מָנַע אוֹתָהּ מִן הַנֶּדֶר, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהֵפֵר לָהּ. הֲנָאָה זוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה הִיא, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר "וְאִם בְּיוֹם שְׁמֹעַ אִישָהּ יָנִיא אוֹתָהּ וְהֵפֵר" (פסוק ט') הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר הֲנָאָה זוֹ הֲפָרָה. וּפְשׁוּטוֹ לְשׁוֹן מְנִיעָה וַהֲסָרָה, וְכֵן "וְלָמָּה תְנִיאוּן" (במדבר ל"ב), וְכֵן "שֶׁמֶן רֹאשׁ אַל יָנִי רֹאשִׁי" (תהילים קמ"א), וְכֵן "וִידַעְתֶּם אֶת תְּנוּאָתִי" (במדבר י"ד) — אֶת אֲשֶׁר סַרְתֶּם מֵעָלַי:

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. בַּמֶּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְנָזִיר וְשָׁמַע בַּעְלָהּ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ וְהִיא לֹא יָדְעָה וְעוֹבֶרֶת עַל נִדְרָהּ וְשׁוֹתָה יַיִן וּמִטַּמְּאָה לְמֵתִים, זוֹ הִיא שֶׁצְּרִיכָה סְלִיחָה וְאַעַ"פִּ שֶׁהוּא מוּפָר, וְאִם הַמּוּפָרִין צְרִיכִים סְלִיחָה, קַ"וָ לְשֶׁאֵינָן מוּפָרִים (עי' קידושין פ"א):

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).

ואם היו תהיה לאיש. זוֹ אֲרוּסָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא נְשׂוּאָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר "וְאִם בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה" הֲרֵי נְשׂוּאָה אָמוּר, וְכָאן בַּאֲרוּסָה, וּבָא לַחֲלֹק בָּהּ שֶׁאָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפֵרִין נְדָרֶיהָ, הֵפֵר הָאָב וְלֹא הֵפֵר הַבַּעַל, אוֹ הֵפֵר הַבַּעַל וְלֹא הֵפֵר הָאָב, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ מוּפָר, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם קִיֵּם אֶחָד מֵהֶם:

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. שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, וְלֹא שָׁמַע בָּהֶן אָבִיהָ וְלֹא הוּפְרוּ וְלֹא הוּקְמוּ (עי' ספרי):

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).

ושמע אישה וגו'. הֲרֵי לְךָ שֶׁאִם קִיֵּם הַבַּעַל שֶׁהוּא קַיָּם:

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).

והפר את נדרה. יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ לֹא הֵפֵר הָאָב, תַּ"ל (פסוק י"ז) "בִּנְעֻרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ" — כָּל שֶׁבִּנְעוּרֶיהָ בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ הִיא (ספרי שם):

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).

כל אשר אסרה על נפשה יקום עליה. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ לֹא בִרְשׁוּת אָב וְלֹא בִרְשׁוּת בַּעַל, וּבְאַלְמָנָה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֲבָל אַלְמָנָה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין — מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה וְחָזְרָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב (נדרים ע'):

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).

ואם בית אשה נדרה. בִּנְשׂוּאָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר (שם ס"ז):

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).

כל נדר וכל שבעת אסר וגו'. לְפִי שֶׁאָמַר שֶׁהַבַּעַל מֵפֵר, יָכוֹל כָּל נְדָרִים בְמַשְׁמָע, תַּ"ל לענת נפש — אֵינוֹ מֵפֵר אֶלָּא נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבַד, וְהֵם מְפֹרָשִׁים בְּמַסֶּ' נְדָרִים (דף ע"ט):

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.

מיום אל יום. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר מֵעֵת לְעֵת, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר "מִיּוֹם אֶל יוֹם", לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאֵין מֵפֵר אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ (נדרים ע"ו):

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).

אחרי שמעו. אַחֲרֵי שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְקִיֵּם, שֶׁאָמַר אֶפְשִׁי בּוֹ, וְחָזַר וְהֵפֵר לָהּ אֲפִלּוּ בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם:

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. הוּא נִכְנָס תַּחְתֶּיהָ. לָמַדְנוּ מִכָּאן שֶׁהַגּוֹרֵם תַּקָּלָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ הוּא נִכְנָס תַּחְתָּיו לְכָל עֳנָשִׁין:

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).

מאת המדינים. וְלֹא מֵאֵת הַמּוֹאָבִים, שֶׁהַמּוֹאָבִים נִכְנְסוּ לַדָּבָר מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה, שֶׁהָיוּ יְרֵאִים מֵהֶם שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שׁוֹלְלִים אוֹתָם, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא "וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם מִלְחָמָה" (דברים ב'), אֲבָל מִדְיָנִים נִתְעַבְּרוּ עַל רִיב לֹא לָהֶם; דָּ"אַ, מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי פְרֵידוֹת טוֹבוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי לְהוֹצִיא מֵהֶם — רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה וְנַעֲמָה הָעַמּוֹנִית (בבא קמא ל"ח):

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).

וידבר משה וגו'. אַעַ"פִּ שֶׁשָּׁמַע שֶׁמִּיתָתוֹ תְלוּיָה בַּדָּבָר עָשָׂה בְשִׂמְחָה וְלֹא אֵחַר (ספרי):

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. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ, לְשׁוֹן חֲלוּצֵי צָבָא — מְזֻיָּנִים:

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

אנשים. צַדִּיקִים, וְכֵן "בְּחַר לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים" (שמות י"ז), וְכֵן "אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וִידֻעִים" (דברים א'):

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'. שֶׁהָעוֹמֵד כְּנֶגֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּאִלּוּ עוֹמֵד כְּנֶגֶד הַקָּבָּ"ה:

‎'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.

לכל מטות ישראל. לְרַבּוֹת שֵׁבֶט לֵוִי (ספרי):

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

וימסרו. לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שִׁבְחָן שֶׁל רוֹעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּמָּה הֵם חֲבִיבִים עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמְעוּ בְמִיתָתוֹ מַה הוּא אוֹמֵר? "עוֹד מְעַט וּסְקָלֻנִי" (שמות י"ז), וּמִשֶּׁשָּׁמְעוּ שֶׁמִּיתַת מֹשֶׁה תְלוּיָה בְנִקְמַת מִדְיָן לֹא רָצוּ לָלֶכֶת עַד שֶׁנִּמְסְרוּ עַל כָּרְחָן (ספרי):

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).

אתם ואת פינחס. מַגִּיד שֶׁהָיָה פִינְחָס שָׁקוּל כְּנֶגֶד כֻּלָּם (ספרי); וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָלַךְ פִּינְחָס וְלֹא הָלַךְ אֶלְעָזָר? אָמַר הַקָּבָּ"ה מִי שֶׁהִתְחִיל בַּמִּצְוָה, שֶׁהָרַג כָּזְבִּי בַת צוּר, יִגְמֹר; דָּ"אַ — שֶׁהָלַךְ לִנְקֹם נִקְמַת יוֹסֵף אֲבִי אִמּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְהַמְּדָנִים מָכְרוּ אֹתוֹ" (בראשית ל"ז); וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהָיְתָה אִמּוֹ שֶׁל פִּינְחָס מִשֶּׁל יוֹסֵף? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "מִבְּנוֹת פּוּטִיאֵל" (שמות ו') — מִזֶּרַע יִתְרוֹ שֶׁפִּטֵּם עֲגָלִים לַעֲ"זָ, וּמִזֶּרַע יוֹסֵף שֶׁפִּטְפֵּט בְּיִצְרוֹ (סוטה מ"ג); דָּבָר אַחֵר — שֶׁהָיָה מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה (שם):

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. זֶה הָאָרוֹן וְהַצִּיץ, שֶׁהָיָה בִּלְעָם עִמָּהֶם וּמַפְרִיחַ מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן בִּכְשָׁפִים וְהוּא עַצְמוֹ פוֹרֵחַ עִמָּהֶם, הֶרְאָה לָהֶם אֶת הַצִּיץ שֶׁהַשֵּׁם חָקוּק בּוֹ וְהֵם נוֹפְלִים, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר "עַל חַלְלֵיהֶם" בְּמַלְכֵי מִדְיָן — שֶׁנּוֹפְלִים עַל הַחֲלָלִים מִן הָאֲוִיר, וְכֵן בְּבִלְעָם כָּתוּב "עַל חַלְלֵיהֶם" בְּסֵ' יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (תנחומא):

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. בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְכֵן (במדבר כ"א) "וַיִּקַּח אֶת כָּל אַרְצוֹ מִיָּדוֹ" (ספרי):

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).

חמשת מלכי מדין. וְכִי אֵינִי רוֹאֶה שֶׁחֲמִשָּׁה מָנָה הַכָּתוּב? לָמָּה הֻזְקַק לוֹמַר חֲמֵשֶׁת? אֶלָּא לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁשָּׁווּ כֻלָּם בָּעֵצָה וְהֻשְׁווּ כֻלָּם בַּפֻּרְעָנוּת (שם); בִּלְעָם הָלַךְ שָׁם לִטֹּל שְׂכַר עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה אֶלֶף שֶׁהִפִּיל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בַּעֲצָתוֹ, וְיָצָא מִמִּדְיָן לִקְרַאת יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמַשִּׂיאָן עֵצָה רָעָה — אָמַר לָהֶם אִם כְּשֶׁהֱיִיתֶם שִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא לֹא יְכָלְתֶּם לָהֶם, וְעַכְשָׁיו בְּי"ב אֶלֶף אַתֶּם בָּאִים לְהִלָּחֵם? — נָתְנוּ לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ מִשָּׁלֵם וְלֹא קִפְּחוּהוּ (ספרי):

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. הוּא בָא עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֶחֱלִיף אֻמָּנוּתוֹ בְּאֻמָּנוּתָם, שֶׁאֵין נוֹצְחִים אֶלָּא בְּפִיהֶם וְעַל יְדֵי תְפִלָּה וּבַקָּשָׁה, וּבָא הוּא וְתָפַשׂ אֻמָּנוּתָם לְקַלְּלָם בְּפִיו, אַף הֵם בָּאוּ עָלָיו וְהֶחֱלִיפוּ אֻמָּנוּתָם בְּאֻמָּנוּת הָאֻמּוֹת שֶׁבָּאִין בַּחֶרֶב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְעַל חַרְבְּךָ תִחְיֶה" (בראשית כ"ז):

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).

טירתם. מְקוֹם נוֹטִירִין שֶׁלָּהֶם, שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן מוֹשַׁב כּוּמָרִים יוֹדְעֵי חֻקֵּיהֶם; דָּ"אַ — לְשׁוֹן מוֹשַׁב שָׂרֵיהֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּתֻרְגָּם "סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים" (שמואל א ו') — טוּרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתָּאֵי:

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).

ויקחו את כל השלל וגו'. מַגִּיד שֶׁהָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים וְצַדִּיקִים, וְלֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל הַגֶּזֶּל לִשְׁלֹחַ יָד בַּבִּזָּה שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר את כל השלל וגו', וַעֲלֵיהֶם מְפֹרָשׁ בַּקַּבָּלָה "שִׁנַּיִךְ כְּעֵדֶר הָרְחֵלִים" וְגוֹ' (שיר השירים ו׳:ו׳) — אַף אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה שֶׁבָּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים:

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. הֵן מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל מַלְבּוּשׁ וְתַכְשִׁיטִין:

שלל are movables consisting of clothing and ornaments.

בז. הוּא בִזַּת מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁאֵינָם תַּכְשִׁיט:

בז is booty of movables that are not ornaments.

מלקוח. אָדָם וּבְהֵמָה, וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁכָּתוּב שְׁבִי אֵצֶל מַלְקוֹחַ, שְׁבִי בָאָדָם וּמַלְקוֹחַ בַּבְּהֵמָה:

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.