Kommentar zu Bamidbar 32:3

עטרות ודיבון וגו׳ ATOROTH AND DIBON etc. — These belonged to the land of Sihon and Og.

עטרות ודיבון, each one offers good grazing land.

עטרות ודיבון, "Attarot and Divon, etc." Why did they have to spell out all the names of the cities they claimed for themselves as an inheritance? Why did they not simply say: "the land which G'd smote, etc.?" Or, they could have detailed districts as described in 32,1 i.e. ארץ יעזר ואת ארץ גלעד? Furthermore, What need was there for them to say הארץ אשר הכה השם? Were there then any other lands which G'd had smitten? Who would not have known which lands the tribes of Reuven and Gad referred to?

They were part of the land of Sichon and Og. For afterwards it is written (v. 4), “The land that Hashem struck down…” meaning [the land of] Sichon and Og whom Yisroel defeated, taking their land, as it is detailed in Parshas Chukas (Ch. 21). Alternatively, because it is written (v. 33), “Moshe gave to them, to the tribe of Gad… the empire of Sichon, king of the Emorites and the empire of Og, king of the Bashan” and writing afterwards (v. 34), “The sons of Gad built up Divon and Ataros…” mentioning all of the cities that are written here. Thus, we see that they were part of the land of Sichon and Og, not the cities of Midian that were written before.

The fact is that these tribes were astute enough to present their claims in a manner which would not expose them to any objections. Theoretically, there could have been several objections. 1) Seeing that the lands in question had been conquered by the people as a whole, by what right did two tribes claim all of it for themselves? 2) How could these two tribes even have imagined that they would be allowed to live securely in a land which had already been conquered whereas the other tribes would have to face war in order to secure their heritage? Why wouldn't every other tribe want to be awarded the territory the tribe of Gad and Reuven were interested in, claiming that they too had no desire to endanger themselves in the forthcoming battle against the Canaanites? Moreover, these two tribes exposed themselves to the taunt that they had chosen to live outside the boundaries of the Holy Land!

The tribes Reuven and Gad were therefore careful to word their intial request with a view to neutralising the objections which we have just listed. They incorporated the answers to the three objections we described in their opening statement. This is why they mentioned both Attarot, etc. as well as "the land which G'd has smitten." Concerning the argument that the lands of Sichon and Og had been conquered by all the tribes, they replied that these lands had not been conquered by natural means but that G'd had smitten those kings, so that the claim of the other tribes to have waged a battle for these lands simply did not stand up to examination. As a result of Divine intervention these lands were G'd's to allocate and their claim did not interfere with the rights of the other tribes.

As to the second argument that the other tribes would have to endanger themselves while the tribes of Reuven and Gad were "sitting pretty," they said that such an argument would only be sound if the Israelites had to conquer the Canaanites by their own effort. Seeing that it was G'd who would fight on their behalf, the conquest of Canaan would proceed on the same lines as that of the lands of Sichon and Og. The other tribes would therefore not be in greater danger than they had been when the lands of Sichon and Og were conquered. Moses himself is on record in Deut. 3,21 as saying: "I have commanded Joshua at that time telling him: 'you have seen with your own eyes all that G'd has done to the two kings of the Emorites; He will do the same to all the kingdoms on the other side to which you will cross.'" In view of this assurance, Reuven and Gad felt that the other tribes had no argument that they were being abandoned and would have to face danger all by themselves.

These two tribes also countered the argument that they were placing themselves outside the Holy Land by residing on the East Bank of the Jordan river, pointing out that G'd had extended His protection to the Israelites to help them conquer these lands. Maimonides writes as follows in chapter one of his treatise on Trumot and Maasrot. "The land of Israel comprises every place which has been conquered by a Jewish king or prophet provided such a conquest had met with the approval of most of the nation. However, if an individual Israelite or even a whole tribe had made war on their neighbours and conquered their territory or part of it, such lands would not be considered as part of the Holy Land even if the territory in question had been part of the land promised by G'd to Abraham." Thus far Maimonides on the subject. He wrote further -in connection with the territories captured by king David,- "why were these lands not considered as on the same level of holiness as the land of Israel? Because David conquered these territories before Israel had conquered all the parts of the land of Canaan which G'd had commanded Joshua to conquer." The basis of the הלכה that also lands outside the boundaries of what we call ארץ ישראל proper will be incorporated halachically is found in Sifri at the end of Parshat Eykev. It is based on Deut. 11,24: "every place that the ball of your foot will step on will remain yours." Seeing that conquest and possession of the land of Israel proper and its boundaries have been mentioned in Joshua chapter five, it is clear that the subject of this verse are lands outside the areas which constitute ארץ ישראל proper. Sifri explains that the reason this verse becomes operative only after the Israelites had dispossessed all the Canaanites within ארץ ישראל proper is so as not to transfer remnants of the impurities and abominations which the Israelites tolerated within their boundaries to newly captured territory. Thus far Sifri on the subject. It is clear from all this that if it had not been for the delay of hundreds of years in expelling or liquidating local inhabitants such as the Jebusite in Jerusalem, for instance, any land conquered by a majority of Israelites would have become incorporated as part of ארץ ישראל proper for all time. At any rate, the tribes Reuven and Gad referred to the territory they wished to settle in as equal in sanctity to that yet to be conquered seeing that G'd had smitten the kings and armies of those lands.

As far as a statement in the Sifri that territory conquered on the East Bank of the Jordan prior to the conquest of the lands on the West Bank does not enjoy the status of sanctity enjoyed by the lands on the West Bank is concerned, and that therefore the lands chosen for themselves by these tribes were not part of the "Holy Land," these tribes countered that this situation was exceptional in view of the fact that G'd had smitten these kings in contrast to their having been conquered by human effort. Hence the sanctity of the land of Israel did apply also to these lands. They were able to quote Moses himself who had stated in Deut. 2,31 that G'd had said to him (not to Joshua) "behold I have begun to deliver up Sichon and his land before you; begin to possess the land." In Deut. 3,2 G'd gave similar instructions to Moses concerning Og and his lands. All of this was proof that G'd had approved the early conquest of these lands. There was also good logic to support such a view as otherwise we would have dealt with two separate conquests, that of lands outside the boundaries of the Holy Land, and that of the West Bank. If this had been the case, the same accusation could have been levelled against the Israelites including Moses at the time that were levelled against David who conquered Aram Tzovah before bothering to conquer Jerusalem. [this is part of the Sifri, although somewhat difficult to confirm from Biblical sources. In fact, Samuel II chapter 9 and 10 both seem to indicate that Jerusalem had been captured previously. Whereas we are told in chapter 8 that David captured ארם צובה, he brought the prisoners to Jerusalem. How could he have done so without capturing Jerusalem first? Ed.] In our situation, the capture of the lands of Sichon and Og were a necessary prerequisite to the conquest of the West Bank. The Israelites had even requested passage to the West Bank through the lands of Sichon and Og but the latter had refused so that there was no other alternative. Conquest of those lands could not be compared to conquest of Aram Tzovah prior to the conquest of Jerusalem then.

Having mentioned all this we now understand why these two tribes spelled out the names of all the cities they were interested in. They wanted to show Moses that the only territory they were asking for was the territory which G'd had smitten. They claimed that all the places mentioned enjoyed the status of sanctity which applies to the Holy Land.

ארץ מקנה היא ולעבדיך מקנה. "It is a land suitable for cattle and your servants possesss cattle." With these words they wanted to forestall another objection. Even after Moses would have agreed to the justice of their claim, the other tribes would all be able to make the same claim based on the same arguments. This is why they had to point out that none of the other tribes had as many heads of cattle as they did.