Kommentar zu Bamidbar 21:24

כי עז FOR [THE BOUNDARY OF THE CHILDREN OF AMMON] WAS STRONG — And what constituted its strength? The warning of the Holy One, blessed be He, who had said to them (the Israelites), (Deuteronomy 2:19), Harass them not, etc.”.

כי עז גבול בני עמון, ”for the border (territory) of the Children of Bney Ammon was powerful.” The verse is a simile. It is a reference to G’d’s instructions to the Israelites not to harass either the Bney Ammon or the Moabites (Deut. 2,19). This instruction made the territory of the Bney Ammon inviolate against any assault by the army of the Israelites. When the Torah mentions in verse 26 that Cheshbon was the capital of Sichon who had conquered it from the first king of Moav, this indicates that the reason Israel was allowed to conquer the lands of Sichon was that it was not included in the part of the territory concerning which G’d had warned the Israelites. This is also the meaning of the somewhat enigmatic statement in Chulin 60 עמון ומואב טהרו בסיחון, that “Ammon and Moav were purified through Sichon.” The conquest by Sichon of some of their territories invalidated the injunction to the Jewish people not to harass them. If the Torah saw fit to mention poetry by the local Emorites (verse 28) in which the victory over Moav is celebrated, our sages have reported to us details of the bravery and mighty deeds of Sichon and the power of the city Cheshbon by saying that even if Chesbon had been filled with only flies no ordinary army could have conquered it. They added that even if Sichon had been in the valley (without the added advantage of being on a mountain) no one could have overcome him (Tanchuma Chukat 23). They claim that even his name Sichon meant that his personal strength was tabletalk all over the country (the word סיחון sounding like שיחה). They deduce from the fact that the Torah makes special mention of the Israelites also killing Sichon’s son, [something which is included in the statement that no one escaped. Ed.] that this son was a mighty warrior in his own right already at that time. Possibly this is deduced from the fact that in Deut. 2,32 the Torah writes בנו instead of בניו as here when describing the fate of Sichon’s sons (son). According to Bamidbar Rabbah 19,29 although both Og and Sichon were Emorites they were so sure of themselves that they did not come to each other’s assistance in their fight against Israel. According to Tanchuma end of Chukat, Sichon’s son was even tougher than his father.

V. 24. מארנון עד יבק, vom Arnon bis zum Jabbok im Norden und dem Gebiete der בני עמון im Osten. כי עז גבול בני עמון: wie gleich weiter entwickelt wird, durften Jisraels Söhne das Gebiet von Cheschbon, das ursprünglich zu Moab gehörte, dem gegenüber jede Feindseligkeit (Dewarim 2, 8) untersagt war, nur deshalb erobern, weil es zuvor der Macht Sichons erlegen und in dessen Besitz gekommen war. In demselben Verhältnis stand das Gebiet der Söhne Ammon zu Israel (daselbst 19). So lange und so weit es Ammon gehörte, war es für Jisrael unantastbar; Sichon hat auch das ostwärts liegende Gebiet erobern wollen, und wäre dies geschehen, so wäre jetzt auch dieses in den Besitz Israels übergegangen, allein עז גבול בני עמון, Ammon widerstand dort Sichon, Sichon konnte es nicht erobern, deshalb blieb es auch für Jisrael unantastbar (siehe unten zu V. 30).