English translation — מטות ב

1.

In this week's parshah the Torah tells that after the war of Midian the "officers of the army" were told,

that "Whoever has killed a person and whoever has touched a slain person, purify yourselves etc."¹

Rashi stands on the words "Whoever has killed a person" and explains: "Rabbi Meir says: The verse speaks of one who kills with something that can become impure.

And the verse taught that a vessel makes a person impure through contact with the dead, as if he touched the dead itself.

Or could it be even if he shot an arrow at him and killed him? The verse says 'and whoever touches'²

a slain person.

It compares the killer to the toucher: just as the toucher [is impure] through his contact, so too the killer [is impure] through his contact."

And it needs to be understood: The source of the statement of Rabbi Meir is in the Sifri,

but in the Sifri it is brought not on the verse "Whoever has killed a person" <b>of our parshah,</b>

but on a <b>previous</b> verse "

(And whoever touches..)

a slain person with a sword" in <b>parshas Chukas</b>³

<b> — </b>the language of the Sifri "The verse speaks of one who kills with something that can become impure" <b>refers</b> to the verse in parshas Chukas.

Also: Rashi &lt;b&gt;adds &lt;/b&gt;to the language of the Sifri the words "and the verse taught you that the vessel defiles a person through the connection of the dead as if he touched the dead itself"&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;.

Regarding this addition of Rashi one can say,

that with this Rashi gives an &lt;b&gt;explanation &lt;/b&gt;in the words of Rabbi Meir

(as one finds in several places that Rashi copies a language of Chazal and then adds an explanation from his own [mind])

But regarding this <b>change</b> the aforementioned

(about which "written" speaks R. Meir)

— that Rashi connects the teaching with another verse — one must say⁵,

that Rashi had a different version in the Sifri⁶,

that according to that version R. Meir speaks about our verse in Parshat Matot⁷.

One must however understand: why does Rashi choose specifically the version,

that R. Meir derives from the verse in Parshat Matot,

and not the widespread version⁸

that

R' Meir refers to the verse in Parshas Chukas?

B,

The Ra"am explains⁹,

that the statement of R' Meir comes in continuation to the preceding law in the Sifri which is derived from "by a fallen sword": "The verse came and taught about the sword that it imparts seven-day uncleanness and the one who touches it is impure with seven-day uncleanness

(— "A sword¹⁰

is like a corpse")

— when one touches a sword

(that touched a corpse)

he is impure with seven-day uncleanness

(just as if he had touched the corpse itself).

And upon this R' Meir adds and innovates,

that from <b>our</b> verse — "any killer of a soul" — one learns,

that "not specifically a sword but <b>any object</b> that can become impure" has the law that "the vessel imparts uncleanness through contact with the corpse as if one touched the corpse itself".

And for this reason Rashi brings it here by our verse and not earlier by the verse "by a fallen sword",

because the <b>proof</b> that "not specifically a sword but any object that can become impure" is from "any killer of a soul" in our parshah.

It is however difficult to learn this way in Rashi's commentary&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

(That according to the plain meaning of Scripture, the exposition of R' Meir &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

(brought in Rashi)

is connected

(and in the continuation)

to the law of "a sword is like a corpse")

— because according to this, the

(main)

novelty of R' Meir in this is that "not specifically a sword" but &lt;b&gt;"any thing &lt;/b&gt;that receives impurity",

and from this language in Rashi "about one who kills with a thing

that receives impurity the verse speaks" it implies,

that R' Meir comes

(and not only "a sword"),

but &lt;b&gt;the opposite — &lt;/b&gt;he comes]

&lt;b&gt;to exclude &lt;/b&gt;,

that the verse speaks only about "one who kills with a thing that receives impurity"

(and not about a killer in general,

by any thing whatsoever).

Also: in Rashi here this law is not mentioned at all that a sword is impure with impurity of seven,

"a sword is like a corpse".

Moreover: also by the verse "by the corpse of a sword" itself

(in Chukat)

Rashi does not explain at all.

From which it is proven,

that according to Rashi "by the corpse of a sword" means literally

(of Scripture)¹²

that one touches a corpse,

not a sword — the sword

(and it is impure because of "a sword is like a corpse")

— because such a change of the plain meaning Rashi would have had to say explicitly,

obviously —

That is, that "by the corpse of a sword" speaks about a case of touching a corpse which is a slain person

(killed by a)

sword and after that the verse adds: or

(even)

a corpse

(ordinary)

or

(even)

a bone of a person — and person here includes both a slain by sword and an ordinary corpse.

And based on this — the teaching of R. Meir that Rashi brings in our parshah is a law in itself,

and "it speaks of one who kills with something that can become impure" is

(according to Rashi's version in the Sifri)

connected exclusively with our "verse"

("anyone who kills a person")

and has no connection with the verse "with a sword of the slain".

And in general — the plain meaning of the verse here is

At first glance: <b>"Every</b>

(any)

murderer of a soul" becomes impure with impurity of a corpse,

"Every murderer of a soul" whether with an object that receives impurity,

whether — that does not receive impurity,

whether with an arrow

(whatever it was, there was no contact with the corpse),

And all

(and also every one who is)

"touching the corpse"

(even when the toucher was not the killer).

And all the more so — from where does Rashi in the plain sense of Scripture learn,

that <b>"all </b>killer of a soul" means specifically "in killing with something that can become impure",

and this itself — specifically if it was "in the connections of the dead"?

3.

Some learn,

that Rashi relies on what he says at the conclusion of his commentary "or perhaps even if he shot an arrow and killed him, the verse states 'and anyone who touches the slain' — it juxtaposes the killer to the toucher: just as the toucher [is impure] through his contact, so too the killer [is impure] through his contact"; and since the impurity of the "killer" is specifically through his contact,

therefore what the killing object touches of the corpse becomes impure and makes the killer impure

("the vessel makes a person impure through contact with the corpse as if he touched the corpse itself")

— therefore it must be an object that can become impure

(because if the killing object remains pure,

then how can something that is capable of becoming impure and nevertheless remains pure — "bring" impurity,

make impure

(the killer)).

But it is extremely forced to assume that the entire foundation of Rashi's commentary is this juxtaposition of "killer to toucher"¹³

— because:

a)

This only compels that it speaks about tumah &lt;b&gt;through connection! &lt;/b&gt;

(not in a manner of "he shot an arrow at him"),

but not that the connecting object must be a "thing that can become impure"; one can nevertheless learn

(as the Ramban&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

learns),

that "every killer of a soul" is impure,

due to &lt;b&gt;shifting&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

(by causing that the dead person is moved from his place)&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

which shifting is even through a thing that cannot become impure.

And on the contrary: since the verse says &lt;b&gt;"every &lt;/b&gt;killer of a soul",

it is plausible as above,

that the Torah includes as &lt;b&gt;many &lt;/b&gt;manners as possible in killing a soul,

and consequently it is seemingly better to learn,

that the verse speaks about "impurity through shifting" which applies to any thing

(whether a thing that can become impure or a thing that cannot become impure),

than to say that it speaks specifically about a killer through a thing that can become impure.

b)

It is difficult to accept,

that the analogy should be a <b>necessary</b> foundation in the simple meaning of the verse even regarding the second detail — that here it speaks specifically about impurity through connection,

when one can learn simply

(as above),

that the verse means here two separate manners of impurity of a corpse:

through <b>"killing</b> a person" or through <b>"touching</b> a corpse".

And especially as above that the verse says <b>"every</b> killer of a person" — whose meaning

(simply)

is — <b>every</b> killer of a person,

and not specifically the one who touches the corpse through connection at the time of killing.

3)

The plain language in the books, and especially in Rashi, is,

that they spoke <b>in the present tense,</b>

that in the war of Midian there was

(also)

"he shot an arrow at him."

And as is the way of wars — with my sword

(and the like)

and with my bow

(and the like).

And according to the above, it turns out that regarding the men of war, the shooters of arrows, the "And you encamp etc." does not apply,

even though they too are included in "And now kill etc."!

d)

already spoken several times,

that also the words of the “opening speech” of Rashi are precise.

and in our case,

since Rashi quotes from the verse only the words “all slayer of a soul”

(and the words “and all who touches a corpse” he does not even hint with “etc.”,

and they are only mentioned at the end of the commentary)

it implies,

that the foundation of this Rashi commentary,

that “it speaks of a slayer with something that receives impurity,

and the verse taught you with it” — is

(not from the words “and all who touches a corpse”,

but)

only from the words “all slayer of a soul”.

: even after one knows that “it speaks of a slayer with something that receives impurity” and that “the vessel defiles a person ..

as if he touched a corpse

himself"

(that the necessity for this is from "anyone who kills a soul")

— there is still a place to say that "even if he shot an arrow at him and killed him" he should become impure,

and this is negated through the analogy,

as follows].

And the explanation of this:

According to the simple meaning of the verse,

the intention of "and you shall encamp etc. every killer etc." is a warning when it pertains <b>to action.</b>

D.

earlier in Parshat Chukat the Almighty told Moshe all the laws regarding impurity of a corpse <b></b>

("This is the Torah etc."¹⁸)

; and in our parshah they are stated at the time of the deed¹⁹,

a warning to the men of the army,

that they should fulfill the laws

(of Parshat Chukat)

in practice.

According to this, however, a great difficulty arises in our verse: learning the words "every killer of a soul" simply implies,

that <b>every</b> killer of a soul becomes impure with corpse impurity,

That

That

is,

is,

the impurity is not connected with touching the corpse or with being in the tent of the corpse,

but the very act of killing a soul makes the killer impure.

and as the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

says "Behold, He says, 'Whoever kills a soul ..

&lt;b&gt;And could it enter your mind &lt;/b&gt;that this one shot an arrow and killed..

became impure for seven days, but rather etc.'"

(as below section 8)

— but in the way of &lt;b&gt;the plain meaning &lt;/b&gt;there is a place to say,

that since through killing a soul one creates

(Avot

Avot 5)

impurity,

one thereby becomes impure himself].

But the question arises: In Parshat Chukat, such a manner of tumat met is not mentioned at all.

So if this is a new category of tumah — why is it not counted earlier among all the other laws

("Zot HaTorah etc.")

of tumat met?

Rashi answers and explains that indeed, it is not so: here no new type of tumah was innovated,

rather this is one of the types of tumah that were stated <b>earlier:</b>

"The verse speaks of one who kills with an object that can become impure,

and the verse taught you that the vessel imparts impurity to a person through the connections of the corpse as if he touched the corpse itself": the impurity of "anyone who kills a soul" — "kills with an object that can become impure" — is a detail of the impurity of &lt;b&gt;contact,&lt;/b&gt;

and it already stands earlier

that even touching "in a grave" imparts impurity,

and according to one explanation in Rashi

(on the words&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

"upon the face of the field")

— even touching the "tombstone and side-posts"]

— only here

(in Parshat Matot)

does the Torah reveal and specify,

that &lt;b&gt;any &lt;/b&gt;vessel that touches the corpse,

is considered "as if he touched the corpse itself"

(when there are "connections of the corpse").

5.

Another matter that Rashi emphasizes with the addition

(on the language of the Sifri)

— "and the verse taught you that the vessel imparts impurity to a person through the connections of the corpse as if he touched the corpse itself":

Were it not for the addition, one could learn,

that that which a "murderer

regarding something that receives impurity" becomes impure with impurity of a corpse,

it is because the <b>vessel</b> that touches the corpse becomes a father of fathers of impurity

(like the corpse itself),

and consequently it renders impure the person who touches it with impurity of a corpse.

<b>In the manner of </b>as this is in the manner of <b>the halacha </b>that "a sword is like a corpse" — the sword receives the same degree of impurity as the "corpse" itself²²

; and similarly we find — also in the simple meaning of the verse — regarding the impurity of a zav,

that the couch

(and seat)

of the zav "becomes a father of impurity

(like the zav himself)

to defile a person to defile garments"²³.

— one would say similarly regarding "one who kills with an object that can receive impurity",

that the "vessel" becomes a father of fathers of impurity.

Rashi wants, however, not to accept it this way,

because according to this it turns out,

that the novelty of the verse "any killer of a soul" is related to the <b>vessel</b> that touches the corpse

(that it receives the strength of the father of fathers of impurity)

— is not smooth: where is the novelty in the words "any killer of a soul"?

If one would have learned it from the verse "and anything that touches ..

with the slain of the sword"

would not have been so difficult — since the verse speaks about touching "with a hollow sword",

there is a place to say that thereby the Torah <b>hints</b> that even when the touching is <b>with a sword</b>

(that touches a hollow [space])

one becomes impure with impurity of seven [days];

Since however one learns it from the verse "any slayer of a soul" — and in that same verse it is not mentioned at all about a "vessel" with which he killed,

it is as fitting to say that the Torah states a novelty in relation to a vessel,

when "the main thing is missing" in the wording "any slayer of a soul"?

Therefore Rashi is precise in his language and says "that the vessel imparts impurity to a person through contact with the corpse <b>as if he touched the corpse itself":</b> Here was innovated not a law in relation to the vessel — that the <b>vessel</b> receives the status of father of fathers of impurity

(In the manner of the couch of the one who has a discharge, that the couch <b>"becomes a father of impurity")</b>

— Rather the law that the person is "as if <b>he touched the corpse itself"</b>²⁴

: Through the fact that he touches the vessel through contact with the corpse,

it is considered a touching of <b>the corpse itself</b>²⁵.

And therefore the verse states the law with the wording "anyone who kills a soul" — which emphasizes the action of the person and his connection with the corpse — because this connection between the killer and the corpse,

that he comes into contact with the corpse

(through the vessel),

creates the impurity,

"as if he touched the corpse itself".

6.

According to the above, one will understand the continuation in Rashi's commentary: "Or perhaps even if he shot an arrow at him and killed him, the verse says 'and whoever touches the slain' — it compares etc." — for at first glance

(Although it says &lt;b&gt;all),&lt;/b&gt;

what does it come to teach us?

— The Ra'am&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

teaches,

that the reasoning of the one who thought that "even if he shot an arrow at him and killed him" should become impure,

is — "lest he does not become impure because of his touching the killer, but rather because of his killing" — including even in a manner of "shot an arrow at him".

But according to the above it is understood,

that such a reasoning

(that the impurity comes from the aspect of the killing)

has from the outset no place in the plain sense of Scripture,

because according to this it would have meant that here a new manner in impurity of a corpse was <b>introduced</b>,

as above section 4; and it is also a difficulty to say,

that Rashi means thereby only an <b>additional</b> proof

(that the impurity does not come from the aspect of the killing)

from the analogy of the killer to the one who touches —

But the explanation in this: since the impurity of "anyone who kills a soul" is from the aspect of that which "it is as if he touched the corpse itself",

it means then,

that regarding impurity of a corpse it is necessary

not be a touch literally,

that the <b>body</b> of the person touches the corpse,

rather it is enough that one comes into contact with the corpse by means of the vessel,

which also is considered "as if touching the corpse itself".

And consequently — "even if he threw an arrow and killed him": since even in the case of touching a vessel "with the connections of the corpse" the touching of the corpse exists

(not in that the <b>body</b> of the person touches the corpse,

only in that one comes into a connection with the corpse

(by means of the vessel)

— it has a place to say,

that also by "he threw an arrow and killed him" is --------the ■ law so²⁷.

For also in this case the person comes into contact with the corpse — through his "force"²⁸

which is in the arrow²⁹.

On this Rashi says "ת״ל and whoever touches a corpse,

he compares a killer to a toucher,

just as a toucher [is impure] through his connection, so too a killer [is impure] through his connection": because regarding the impurity of "killer" it is

(not a &lt;b&gt;new &lt;/b&gt;type of impurity from the aspect of the killing,

rather)

from the aspect of the law of impurity of &lt;b&gt;touch,&lt;/b&gt;

therefore it is logical to say,

that the impurity of "whoever kills a soul" is in the same manner as "whoever &lt;b&gt;touches &lt;/b&gt;a corpse"

(which is stated in the continuation one)

— "just as a toucher through his connection, so too a killer through his connection".

7.

A sharp student can however ask: since in both cases,

both by "connection of the dead" and by "he threw an arrow at him and killed him",

the touching of the corpse

(is not a touch" in its simple sense,

but)

but)

only a "connection" that is created through a second thing — it requires an explanation: ultimately in what does the difference consist between the two modes of connection that specifically by the first mode one becomes impure with impurity of a corpse?

— Rashi explains the reasoning in this by bringing the baal hamaamar,

R' Meir: the Gemara³⁰

says a rule that R' Meir holds of dinai d'garmi.

D.

H.

Although that we hold³¹

that garma is exempt,

R' Meir however holds,

that if the indirect causation is in a manner of "garmi",

it is exactly like one who damages with his hands and is obligated to pay for the damage.

The point of distinction between "garma" and "garmi" is³²

: "garma" means,

that the damage is caused in a manner that there is a

Distance,

in place or in time,

between the act of the damager and the actual damage; unlike "grama" means,

when the damage is caused in proximity

(place and time)

to the act of the person.

And so in our matter: although in both cases,

both by "attaching to the dead" and by "threw at him and killed him",

there is only a matter of connection and relationship with the dead through an intermediary,

nevertheless there is between them a fundamental difference: by "attaching to the dead" the touching with a vessel creates a "proximity"

(connection)

with the dead,

and therefore it is "as if he touched the dead itself"

(in the manner of by "grama",

as above,

that it is considered like a damager with hands)

; unlike in the case of "threw an arrow at him",

where the force comes into contact with the dead with an interruption of place etc.³³,

it is not "as if he touched the dead itself".

8.

And here one sees — in wondrous matters according to the halachah — the difference between

(the language

of Rashi [from] the language

of the Rambam in this matter:

The matter that is at the conclusion of Rashi's commentary — "It could be [understood] that even if he shot an arrow into him, etc." — is brought in the Rambam³⁴,

but with three changes

(essential ones),

and this is its language: "Behold, it says: 'Whoever kills a soul and whoever touches a corpse' — and could it enter your mind that one who shot an arrow and killed, or threw a stone and killed, is impure for seven days?

Rather, etc."

a)

A change most perplexing: The Rambam says "And could it enter your mind"

(and consequently one need not have at all

(and he

does not bring)

any analogy on this),

i.e.

that is

this is a matter of wonder that has ab initio no place in logic

(as above section d)

— not as in Rashi

(and Sifri)

: "I might think even

he threw etc., therefore the verse says 'and whoever touches a corpse' it compares etc.",

i.e.

that is

there is a possibility and a supposition that "he shot an arrow into him" should become impure with impurity of a corpse,

and one must arrive at the analogy of "the killer to the toucher" in order to negate the logical reasoning.

b)

The Rambam <b>adds</b> an example — "or he threw <b>a stone</b> and killed"³⁶.

c)

In Rashi

(and Sifri)

it stands "he threw <b>at him</b> an arrow³⁷

and killed him" — but in the Rambam the wording is "he shot an arrow <b>and killed</b> or he threw a stone <b>and killed",</b>

the one killed is not mentioned.

And according to the above, it can be said that the aforementioned differences are interdependent:

The simple understanding in Rashi's commentary that "he shot an arrow at him and killed him" is impure with the impurity of a corpse,

is because it has a definition of impurity of <b>contact</b>,

("as if he touched the corpse itself"),

due to the "connection" between the power of the man and the corpse,

as explained above at length.

And therefore:

a)

The precision here is "he threw at him an arrow and killed him" — and it emphasizes the connection between the murderer and the deceased.

b)

The example is specifically from "he threw at him an arrow"

(not — "a stone"),

which is an object

that which receives impurity.

Because since the assumption is that one becomes impure through impurity of contact, it is understood that this applies specifically if "he kills with an object that receives impurity"

(that the contact is by means of an object that receives impurity).

3)

There is indeed a place for the assumption — "I might think even etc." — and in order to negate it one must arrive at a hekesh.

But not so the Rambam,

who does not hold that tumah be-chiburim is from the Torah³⁸

— and the law of "anyone who kills a person" he brings in the halachah of "the sword is like the corpse"³⁹,

that "the same applies to other vessels, whether metal vessels etc." that "they are for the one who touches them like one who touches the corpse itself: just as the corpse imparts tumah etc., so too vessels that became impure from a corpse, they and the vessels or the person who touches them are impure with a seven-day impurity" —

does not bring even a kasheh a <b></b>

(possibility)

— that "he shot an arrow at him and killed him" is impure because of the "connection" between the killer and the killed; rather he says "and could it enter your

&lt;b&gt;Your opinion &lt;/b&gt;etc.״ — The Rambam rejects the rationale from the outset that the &lt;b&gt;essence of killing &lt;/b&gt;causes impurity.

And therefore he says:

א)

“And could it enter your mind” — because this is

(in the manner of the halachah)

a rationale that has no place from the outset.

b)

"shot an arrow and killed"

(not — "..

<b>in him..</b>

and killed him")

— because here the connection and action of the killed person is not relevant,

but the very act of killing.

c)

He adds the example of "threw a stone" which is not an object that can become impure — to emphasize that he comes to negate the reasoning that the impurity comes from the very act of killing,

so that in this there is no difference whether it is through an object that can become impure or not.

9.

from the wine of Torah that is in Rashi's commentary:

Just as this is on the opposite side of good,

regarding impurity,

that "the vessel imparts impurity to a person through contact with the corpse as if he touched the corpse itself",

so too is this on the side of good,

regarding purity and holiness,

that through attachment to Torah scholars "Scripture considers it as if he attached himself to the Shechinah itself"⁴⁰.

And on the contrary, since "the measure of good is greater than the measure of punishment"⁴¹,

it is understood,

that even though regarding impurity,

it is a "cause",

a "further" connection and relation to the matter of sin and impurity does not affect the person that it should become attached to him

"impurity"

(only when it is in a manner of "attachment" specifically),

But on the side of holiness, the opposite&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

: in order to become "attached to the Shechinah literally"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

it is sufficient when one is attached to Torah scholars with a connection of any kind,

as the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

says "Whoever marries his daughter to a Torah scholar and does business for a Torah scholar,

and benefits a Torah scholar from his property"&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

does this such that "it is as if he attaches to the Shechinah

(literally)

And it becomes "And you who cling to Hashem are all <b>alive</b> today"⁴⁶.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Matos-Masei 5742)