When the soldiers return from the battle with the Midianites, Parashat Matot notes that Moshe became angry with them (“…And Moshe became angry with the commanders of the army” - Bemidbar 31:14) for allowing the women to remain alive – the very same women who had caused the people to commit idolatry. Immediately after Moshe instructs the soldiers to correct their mistake and treat the women as enemy combatants, he explains to them how they are to deal with ritual impurity, since they had come into contact with the dead or had been involved in the killing.
“You shall then stay outside the camp seven days; every one among you or among your captives who has slain a person or touched a corpse shall cleanse himself on the third and seventh days. You shall also cleanse every cloth, every article of skin, everything made of goats’ hair, and every object of wood” (Bemidbar 31:19-20).
The very next paragraph also deals with purification that was required as a consequence of the warfare, but this time the laws are not taught by Moshe, but by Elazar haKohen:
“Elazar the priest said to the troops who had taken part in the fighting, ‘This is the ritual law that the LORD has enjoined upon Moses: Gold and silver, copper, iron, tin, and lead – any article that can withstand fire—these you shall pass through fire and they shall be clean, except that they must be cleansed with water of lustration; and anything that cannot withstand fire you must pass through water. On the seventh day you shall wash your clothes and be clean, and after that you may enter the camp’” (Bemidbar 31:21-24).
This paragraph is known as the laws of “Geulei Midyan” – the unclean vessels of the Midianites – and it explains how to purify the vessels taken from the enemy so that they can be used in Israelite kitchens. This is one of the sources for the laws of how to make pots and pans kosher.
The relationship between these two sets of laws – those taught by Moshe and those taught by Elazar – is ambiguous. Why was the second set of laws added to the story? What was Elazar’s role? Why was it Elazar who taught these laws rather than Moshe, especially since Elazar introduces his teaching with the words “This is the ritual law that the LORD has enjoined upon Moses”?
In Massekhet Pesahim, the Gemara suggests that Moshe had forgotten the laws that he had been taught by God, which is why Elazar had to step in and clarify matters:
Reish Lakish said: Any person who becomes angry, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him…If he is a Torah scholar his wisdom departs from him is learned from Moses, as it is written: “And Moses became angry with the officers of the host, the captains over thousands and the captains over hundreds, who came from the battle” (Bemidbar 31:14). And what was his punishment? As it is written afterward: “And Elazar the priest said to the men of war who went to the battle: This is the statute of the law, which the Lord commanded Moses” (Bemidbar 31:21), which proves by inference that this law had become hidden from Moses due to his anger.
According to Resh Lakish, Moshe’s anger caused him to forget the laws relating to purification of vessels, which is why Elazar had to teach them. Rereading the paragraph from this perspective, it appears that Elazar is trying to do this in the most respectful way that he can. Acting as a student before his teacher, he makes sure to clarify that he is merely sharing knowledge that he received from Moshe, to whom it was taught by God. Resh Lakish makes us understand that Elazar finds himself in a predicament. On the one hand, he recognizes that he cannot let the people use the captured vessels without purifying them. On the other hand, he is uncomfortable teaching the law in the presence of his teacher. Resh Lakish also informs us of the reason that Moshe forgot the law – his anger at the soldiers caused him to lose clarity and sharpness of focus.
In contrast with the Gemara – which also appears in various midrashim and in Rashi – ibn Ezra offers an alternative approach to this paragraph:
“‘Elazar the priest said…’ because the laws of the Red Heifer had been taught to Elazar. Moshe said to them ‘cleanse’ as a general statement, and Elazar explained the details of what had to be done.
Ibn Ezra reads the interaction very differently. According to his approach, everything that Elazar taught was included in Moshe’s instructions in the previous verses. Moshe gave his commands in a single, short, succinct word – “cleanse.” Elazar recognized that this might not be clear enough for the listeners to understand, so he added further, practical details. The suggestion of the ibn Ezra works well with the fact that we already find a reference to purification of the vessels in Moshe’s command when he says: “You shall also cleanse every cloth, every article of skin, everything made of goats’ hair, and every object of wood.”
Both of these approaches examine the paragraph from the perspective of the complex relationship between teacher and student. On the one hand, the awe required of a student demands that he refrain from teaching the law in place of his teacher. At the same time, it is the student who often recalls his master’s teachings and knows them even better than the teacher does. Since he sits as a student who aspires to master all of the lessons of his teacher, he may recall even the most obscure ideas presented in class. For this reason, he may successfully connect an esoteric statement with an important one and recognize the relationship between them. As he collects his master’s teachings, he compares one with another, critiquing and analyzing them, so that he may uncover ideas that even his teacher did not fathom.
But is it anger that causes the teacher to forget his lessons? Or might he neglect to mention something specifically because he approaches the situation in the guise of “teacher”?
As a teacher, Moshe is focused on the educational question. Looking at things from a broad perspective, he becomes preoccupied with a sense of failure because the soldiers brought back the very women who had led to the war with Midian in the first place. He has not forgotten the question of the purity of vessels, but he is not focused on those details. The student can successfully bring the teacher back to the source material, but it may not be the right thing to do at that moment in time. Sometimes the student mistakenly thinks that some detail has been forgotten, but it is the broader perspective of the teacher that prevents him from discussing it at this point. In this way the teacher is much greater than the student gives him credit for. He is more authentic, more dynamic, more liberated than the two-dimensional figure perceived by the student. That is why some commentators believe that Elazar was punished. His teachings are never again mentioned in the Torah. Yehoshua does not appear to need him.
The second approach, that of ibn Ezra, emphasizes the way in which the student’s abilities exceed those of the teacher. The student studies his teacher’s words diligently and knows every detail of his teachings. The student may not be especially innovative, but his advantage lies in his ability to mediate things for the next generation. According to Ibn Ezra, the situation described in our parasha – almost wordlessly – is a critical turning point. Suddenly Moshe Rabbeinu’s teaching requires clarification. There is now a generation gap between Moshe and those listening to him. This generation speaks a new language, and Moshe's words require mediation and interpretation.
In truth, there is no contradiction between these two approaches. Specifically by combining them together we can see the delicate and complex mechanism of the human relationship between teacher and student. The delicate dance between standing in awe and stepping forward, between imitation and initiative, between preservation of tradition and reorganization in the face of new challenges. All of these serve as the platform on which the Torah grows and develops.