Commentaire de citation sur Le Deutéronome 3:8

AFTER HE HAD SMITTEN SIHON, THE KING OF THE AMORITES, WHO ‘DWELT’ IN HESHBON — for Heshbon was not his, but he conquered it from the king of Moab and he built it to be his royal capital. Similarly, and Og the king of Bashan, who ‘dwelt’ in Ashtaroth, at Edrei³⁹In Verse 4 before us. means that it was previously the land of Rephaim⁴⁰Further, 3:13. [and then it was occupied by the king of the Amorites] as I will explain⁴¹Ibid., 2:10; 3:11. with the help of G-d. And because Scripture states, who dwelt in Ashtaroth, at Edrei,³⁹In Verse 4 before us. it indicates that Ashtaroth is the name of a place in which Edrei is located [as will be explained further]. The text of the Sifre is as follows:⁴²Sifre, Devarim 3. “‘B’ashtaroth’ — it was as hard as ashtaroth. ‘B’edrei’ — this was the seat of the government [i.e., the royal city].” Rashi wrote: “Ashtaroth — is an expression denoting rocks and hardness. Ashtaroth is Ashteroth-karnaim⁴³Genesis 14:5. This is an expression for “strength” [“the hard rocks of Kamayim”]. where the Rephaim were, as it is said, and they smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim.⁴³Genesis 14:5. This is an expression for “strength” [“the hard rocks of Kamayim”]. ‘B’edrei’ — this was the name of the kingdom [indicating that the kingdom of Edrei was located in Ashteroth-karnaim]. And⁴⁴The text from this point on, until the end of the quotation is not found in our texts of Rashi. Part of it is found in Rashi further, 7:13. so it is written, ‘ashteroth’ of thy sheep,⁴⁵Further, 7:13. meaning, as Targum [Onkelos] rendered it [‘the flocks of thy sheep’]. And our Rabbis have said:⁴⁶Chullin 84b. Why is the name ashtaroth given to them [i.e., flocks of sheep]? It is because they ‘enrich’ [from the Hebrew word ashir — rich] their owners and strengthen them like these ashtaroth which are strong rocks.” [This is Rashi’s language].
Now the Rabbi [Rashi] incorporated into the word [ashtaroth] two meanings [strength and riches], but we do not know from what source the Rabbi inferred that ashtaroth is a name for rocks and stones. But it is possible for us to say that ashtaroth is a term for flocks of sheep, from the word ashir (rich) as in the words of the Sages [quoted above: “Why is their name ashtaroth? It is because they enrich their owners”]. Ashteroth-karnaim⁴³Genesis 14:5. This is an expression for “strength” [“the hard rocks of Kamayim”]. was a place of high mountains upon which there were strongholds of stone, these being likened by Scripture to “the horns of cattle,” just as Scripture likens them to “teeth,” as it says upon ‘the crag’ [literally: “the tooth”] of the rock, and the stronghold.⁴⁷Job 39:28. Similarly, upon ‘the horns’ of the altar.⁴⁸Exodus 29:12. So also, ‘b’keren’ ben shamen⁴⁹Isaiah 5:1. These verses illustrate the Scriptural tendency of likening topographical characteristics to parts of animals such as horns and teeth. [literally: “in a fruitful ‘horn'”] which the Targum [Yonathan ben Uziel] renders: “On a high hill, in a fruitful land.” There, [upon these high hills,] the flocks of sheep ascend, the he-goats, the she-goats, and the wild-goats⁵⁰Psalms 104:18: The high mountains are for the wild-goats. and their like; and therefore the place is called Ashteroth-karnaim⁵¹Judges 2:13. [because the flocks which “enrich” their owners (ashtaroth) ascend to the “horns” of the mountain (karnaim)]. So also, and they served Baal and the Ashtaroth⁵¹Judges 2:13. — ‘Ashtaroth’ because the idol was made in the form of a sheep in order to protect them [the flocks of sheep], in accordance with their foolish belief. [This is in line with our explanation of the word ashtaroth as a synonym for sheep.] Now at the foot of the mountain they built a city whose name was Edrei, this being intimated in the verse which states, and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, unto battle at Edrei,⁵²Further, 3:1. This verse clearly indicates that Edrei is the name of a particular locality rather than the name of the entire country, hence it can be said that Og gathered his army there. This proves Ramban’s explanation “that Ashtaroth is the name of a region wherein Edrei is located.” However, it could not be as Rashi explained that Edrei is the name of the kingdom, for if it were the name of an entire country, how could it be said that Og, gathered his army “at Edrei” when it is not the name of a specific, particular place? (Aboab). denoting that he gathered his entire army to the city where the palace of the king and the throne of the kingdom were. And this is the purport of the [following] Midrashic text [which seems to agree with Rashi’s interpretation], wherein the Rabbis, of blessed memory, have stated: “Who dwelt in Ashtaroth, at Edrei. Even if Og himself had not been difficult to defeat but had resided in Ashtaroth, he would have been difficult to defeat, because the city was a difficult one to capture etc.”⁵³“And even if the city had not been difficult to capture, but Og resided in it, it would have been difficult to capture because its king was difficult to defeat. How much more so when the king was difficult to defeat and the city difficult to capture” (Sifre). Therefore they interpreted, Ashtaroth to mean that it was “as hard as Ashtaroth,”⁵⁴In other words, the word Ashtaroth here does not indicate something hard. But because Og’s royal city Edrei was well fortified, the Sifre compares it to Ashteroth-karnaim where the Rephaim lived and from where Og originated. [the phrase from which Rashi, quoted above, deduced that the word ashtaroth is defined as “hard”], as if to say that his residence was like the fortified city of Ashteroth-karnaim⁴³Genesis 14:5. This is an expression for “strength” [“the hard rocks of Kamayim”]. from which he and his family originated; for at that time he was not residing in Ashtaroth, but was residing in the land of the Amorites. And “the place of the government” [mentioned in the Sifre above] means that the city where he lived was Edrei⁵⁵Thus, unlike Rashi who wrote that Edrei was the name of the kingdom, Ramban holds that Edrei was the name of the royal city, and the name of the kingdom was “The Bashan.” but Bashan was the name of the land of his kingdom.

AND G-D LED THEM NOT BY THE WAY OF THE LAND OF THE PHILISTINES BECAUSE¹“Because.” Thus Rashi and Ibn Ezra render the Hebrew word ki, as will be explained. Ramban will suggest further on in the text that the word ki should be understood here as “although.” The J.P.S. translation follows Ramban’s explanation. IT WAS NEAR. “It would therefore be easy [for the Israelites] to return to Egypt by the same route. There are many Midrashic explanations, [but the above is the plain sense of Scripture].” Thus the language of Rashi. This is also the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, who explained the purport of the verse to be that G-d led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines “because” it was near. They might therefore be filled with regret [when they experience war], and they would immediately return to Egypt.
In my opinion, if their explanations were correct, the expression for G-d said would have been mentioned in first place in the verse, in which case the verse would read: “and G-d led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, for G-d said, Because it is near, lest peradventure the people repent!”²But actually the verse reads: and G-d led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines because it was near; for G-d said, etc. In other words, Ramban argues that according to Rashi and Ibn Ezra, the reason for G-d’s choice of the route by the wilderness and not by the land of the Philistines [because it was near], should have followed after the expression for G-d said. But the correct interpretation is that [the expression in question does not state the reason for G-d’s choice but merely] states that G-d led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines although it was near and it would have been advantageous to lead them by that route, for G-d said: Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.
The reason they would experience war if they went by the way of the land of the Philistines, is that the Philistines would surely not have given them permission to go peacefully through their land, and thus they might return to Egypt. But by the way of the wilderness, they would not see war until they came to the lands of Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites,³Deuteronomy 3:8. which were given to them [i.e. to Israel]. At that time, they were already far from Egypt, [and there was thus no reason to fear that they would be tempted to return to Egypt because of war]. The war of Amalek in Rephidim⁴Further, 17:8-13. was no reason for the Israelites to return to Egypt, since they did not pass through the land of the Amalekites. Rather, Amalek came from his country and warred against them because of his hatred of Israel. Even if they were to take their own course to return to Egypt, it would be to no avail since Amalek would fight them on the way. Besides, they were already far from Egypt because of the circuitous route which they had followed, and they knew of no other route.
Now Rashi commented: “When they see war. For instance, the war of the Canaanite and the Amalekite.⁵In Numbers 14:45 and so in Rashi here: And the Amalekite and the Canaanite came down. If they had proceeded by the direct route, they would have then turned back. For after He had made them go round by a circuitous way they said, Let us make a captain and go back to Egypt,⁶Ibid., 14:4. and how much more so would they have said it had He led them by a straight road!”⁷Mechilta on the verse before us.
The purport of that which Scripture states, and G-d led them not… But G-d led the people about, by the way of the wilderness,⁸Verse 18. is that when they journeyed from Succoth,⁹Verse 20. a pillar of cloud¹⁰Verse 21. began to go before them. It did not go by the way of the land of the Philistines but instead went by the way of the wilderness of Etham,⁹Verse 20. and the Israelites walked after it. The cloud then rested in Etham and they encamped there, and that was at the edge of the wilderness.⁹Verse 20.

The Land of Og about which it is said ... It seems that Og, although he was actually an Emorite — as it is written about [Sichon and Og], “Two kings of the Emorites” (Devarim 3:8) — was king of the Chivites who are the Refa’im. And Og who was an Emorite, is called “remnant of the Refa’im” (ibid) because he was their king. But if you say “the Refa’im” means [the Land of] Og, and all of them were Emorites, then why does it say (v. 21), “the Emorites”? The Emorites were already accounted for by, “the Refa’im”. (Re’m)