Kupuka Sermon – "All private matters, why me?"

Peace and blessings
In the sermon on particulars and generalities, the rabbi asks in several places, "Every individual, why me?" meaning that there must be a reason for each of the particulars in order to understand the generality, in order to demand a generality. And if you do not find a reason for each particular, we will demand a generality anyway, not a generality.
I am now dealing with the issue of the impurity of metals, as learned from the Midianite vessels, whether it is permissible to require the use of a scepter, and including additional metals beyond the six mentioned in the Torah.
In this case, the command was specifically addressed to the soldiers who went to war against Midian, and the Torah could not rely on the soldiers learning the command in general and in particular, and certainly it would have been necessary to detail all the types of tools for them. Likewise, it was not possible to say the name 'metal', because the word metal as a general noun did not exist at that time. In such a case, there should not be a reason for each of the details to be taught in detail. But I have not found anyone who says so, or any evidence. Apparently, my innovation should also be said when learning in plural, when an unnecessary command is mentioned and one wants to teach from it. If it is addressed to that generation, it turns out that the Torah will detail it in order to be clear, and according to Rabbi Yishmael, the Torah spoke like the language of humans.
I would love to hear your opinion on this.
thanks
 
Rabbi Michi
You assume that the Torah's record is exactly the language that was originally spoken to them. But simply put, the language of the Torah is aimed at future generations, not necessarily at that generation, and therefore it chooses a formulation that will suit future generations. In any case, an explanation is needed for every detail that appears there, otherwise the Torah would have phrased it differently and differently from what it told them in that generation.
Like the verses "to this very day," which clearly address readers from future generations.
See, for example, Rambam in Pihamash, Suf Gid Hanesha, where he explains that the verses of Gid Hanesha were spoken at Sinai and arranged in their place as part of the order of events in the Book of Genesis.

Therefore, the term metal could also appear there even if it did not exist in that generation.

B.K.

The term metal also did not exist at the time of the giving of the Torah, so it could not be used.
Regarding the change in language – the examples you gave are an addition of an expression and not a shortening. Also, there was really a need to change it for generations. According to you, if we suppose the Torah wanted to include all types of metals, it should have shortened the verse and written only two types of metals so that we would learn in general and in particular. And it did not do so, to say that we would not require it.
A. Do we have evidence that the Torah changed its wording in such a way as to delete and shorten?
on. I think that in this case there was no need to change the wording to learn the Kupfa, because in that generation, no other metal was known, so certainly, in a simplified way, there was no need to mention other metals. But my argument is that the Torah believed that there was impurity in all these metals because of their common denominator, without knowing that there were other materials with a similar denominator. Now that we have discovered the other materials, we are multiplying them as well.
But it's difficult for me, if one asks in general and in particular, why the Torah listed all the metals. And the answer is – because that generation needed to know clearly what the impure materials were without having to go through sermons.
What do you think?