What are the implications of "ve'Chol Ishah Yoda'as Ish le'Mishkav Zachar Harogu"?
Rashi: It implies that they should kill all women who were fit 1 to be intimate, 2 even though they had never actually been intimate. 3
Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It is only those women who had actually been intimate that they were commanded to kill.
Who had reached the age of three (Sifsei Chachamim). See also Ba'al ha'Turim, DH 'Yoda'as Ish' and 've'Chol Ishah ... '.
Yevamos 60b: Because if the Pasuk meant literally, who who had been imtimate, it would imply that women who had not been intimate, they were permitted to retain - whereas the next Pasuk implies that other than small girls had to be killed, even they had not been intimate.
See Sifsei Chachamim. It is difficult to understand however, why they deserved to die, seeing as they were definitely not guilty of causing Yisrael to sin?
How did they know which girls were under three to keep them alive?
Rashi and Targum Yonasan: They passed them before the Ttitz and the faces of those who were over three (those that had had relations with a man ? Targum Yonasan) turned green (or yellow). 1
See Ba?al ha?Turim DH ?Yoda?as Ish? and ?ve?Chol Ishah?.
Why does the Pasuk add the (otherwise superfluous) word "ve?Chol Ishah Yoda?as Ish ? Harogu"?
Rashi: Because otherwise, we would not know whether "ve'Chol Ishah Yoda'as Ish" goes with "Kol Zachar ba'Taf" - to be killed, or with "ve'Chol ha'Taf ba'Nashim" - to let live.
Why does the Torah insert "ve'Chol Ishah Yoda'as Ish ... Harogu"? Why can we not extrapolate it from "ve'Chol ha'Taf ba'Nashim asher Lo Yad'u ... Hachayu" ? in the following Pasuk?
Why is the first "Hirgu" necessary? The Torah could have written "Kol Zachar ba'Taf ve'Chol Ishah Yoda'as Ish... Harogu"!
Riva (citing R. Tam of Orleans): If so, we might have thought that also the male Taf, one kills only those who were fit to be intimate (Moshav Zekenim - whom they would have checked via the Tzitz - just like the females. But now that there are separate commands to kill males and females, we know that they are different. 1
Rosh: The Torah teaches us that the primary Mitzvah was to kill young men, even below the age of liability, who died due to their fathers' sins; and killing the women who had reached the age of intimacy was secondary. 2
Moshav Zekenim #1: They needed to be written separately since they are different. The women were not killed until they passed in front of the Tzitz, wheres the boys were killed immediately - as the Torah writes "ve'Atah Hirgu Kol Zachar ... ".
Moshav Zekenim #2: One might have thought that only the females are killed, since they caused Yisrael to sin.
Refer to 31:17:151:3.
Why does the Torah need ro write "[Hirgu] Kol Zachar ba'Taf..."? We can extrapolate this from the fact that they were told to keep the female Taf alive?
Rosh: Because, we might otherwise have Darshened a Gezeirah Shavah "Taf-Taf", and the male Taf are kept alive, just like the female Taf. 1
Rosh: But the Chachamim cannot learn a Geeirah Shavah unless it was handed down by tradition? (Perhaps such a Gezeirah Shavah was received, for a different law. (If not for the repetition, we would have expounded it to equate male and female Taf).
Since they needed to kill all the males, who is the "Sh'vi ba'Adam" mentioned in Pasuk 26?
Moshav Zekenim #1: They were captives from other nations. The command was only to kill the captives from Midyan. 1
Moshav Zekenim #2: They were all from Midyan, girls less than three years old. We find that women are called Adam. 2
What prompted him to say this? Pasuk 35 states that the thirty-two thousand Nefesh Adam of the Malko'ach were the girls who were not intimate? (PF). From his second answer, it is evident that he is currently relying on the assumption that "Adam" is confined to males.
Moshav Zekenim: As Targum Yonason teaches us in Yeshayah 44:13. Why did he not prove it from Pasuk 35, "ve'Nefesh Adam min ha'Nashim..."? (PF)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that if not for "Harogu", we would not know whether "ve'Chol Ishah Yoda'as Ish" are killed with "Kol Zachar ba'Taf", or kept alive with "ve'Chol ha'Taf ba'Nashim." If it was the latter, why did the Torah need to mention that infant women were kept alive, since we would know this from a Kal ve'Chomer?
Riva: We might otherwise have thought to learn female Taf from male Taf, who are killed. 1
Rosh: We do not punish [even Nochrim] based on a Kal v'Chomer. 2
Moshav Zekenim (citing R. Shamriyah): Rashi means that we would not know whether women who were fit to be intimate who did not sin are killed or kept alive. And the Gemara concludes that girls who were not fit to be intimate are kept alive even if they were intimate.
Moshav Zekenim: This teaches that we do not punish based on a Kal va'Chomer. 3
Riva: If so, the Torah should have said to kill all Taf, without distinguishing gender! Perhaps we would have thought that only females Yoda'as Ish are killed, even though the Torah did not specify.
Bava Kama 38a: Hashem said to take revenge against Midyan, and Moshe thought that all the more so, to fight Mo'av. Hashem said not to, for Rus will come from them; He did not say that we do not punish from a Kal va'Chomer! Perhaps the Gemara records only one of the reasons (PF).
The Gemara in Makos, 5b learns this from "Ervas Achoso Gilah" (refer to Vayikra 20:17:152:1)! Perhaps here it teaches that we do not punish even Nochrim based on a Kal v'Chomer. (PF)
Rashi writes that we might have thought that "ve'Chol Ishah Yoda'as Ish" are kept alive. Seeing as Moshe was angry because they did not kill the women, how could we think that?
