Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Keluaran 6:15

[Daniel 1:1] Bi-shnat (בִּשְׁנַת - In the... year): We find it written that Jehoiakim reigned for eleven years [II Kings 23:36; II Chronicles 36:5]. If so, what is the meaning of “in the third year of his reign”?! Now, concerning ["these are the sons of Josiah," I Chronicles 3:15] it is written that he left four sons: the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. And we find that when Josiah died, his son reigned. Some of our Sages, of blessed memory, said that this Jehoahaz [who reigned first, II Kings 23:31] is Johanan. But behold, he reigned only three months [II Kings 23:31]. Then his brother Jehoiakim reigned after him, and he [Jehoiakim] was twenty-five years old [II Kings 23:36]. Now, he [Jehoahaz, who was 23, II Kings 23:31] was younger than Jehoiakim. So how could Scripture call [Johanan, identified by the Sages with Jehoahaz] the firstborn?! Therefore, they said [it means] "firstborn for kingship" [i.e., the first to be chosen to reign]. And [based on this line of reasoning] they were forced to say that Shallum is Zedekiah, because Jeremiah's prophecy concerning Shallum [Jeremiah 22:11-12] is adjacent to his prophecy concerning Zedekiah [Jeremiah 23:5-6]. Furthermore, [they argued this] because no one reigned over Israel after Zedekiah, and for Scripture to list a fourth [son, Shallum] merely as a name without substance [i.e., without significance] would be a strange way [of writing]. Now, understand that [contrary to those Sages] Jehoahaz is Shallum. And Johanan did not reign. And do not be astonished that Shallum is called by two names, for behold, Solomon is Qohelet [Ecclesiastes 1:1], and the sons of Samuel [were listed as] Vashni and Abijah [I Chronicles 6:13], yet elsewhere it is written that [the firstborn] was Joel [I Samuel 8:2]; and ʿAmminadav is Izhar [cf. I Chronicles 6:7, I Chronicles 6:23, based on certain lineage interpretations]; and Uriel is Zephaniah [cf. I Chronicles 6:9, I Chronicles 15:5, I Chronicles 15:11]; and many others like these. And in the Torah, Zerah is Zohar [Genesis 46:10 vs. Numbers 26:13 / Exodus 6:15 - different spellings for Simeon's son]. And the proof that Shallum is Jehoahaz is that when the father [Josiah] died, Jehoiakim was 25 years old [II Kings 23:36], Zedekiah, who was the third [son listed in I Chronicles 3:15], was 24 (sic) years old, and Shallum was 23 years old [II Kings 23:31, giving Jehoahaz's age]. And [consistent with the people choosing the younger son first], it is written: “And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah, anointed him, and made him king in place of his father Josiah” [II Kings 23:30]. And a second proof that Shallum is Jehoahaz is that it is written that Pharaoh Neco took him [Jehoahaz] after he had reigned three months, brought him to Egypt, and he died there [II Kings 23:31-34]. And it is written in Jeremiah concerning Shallum: “he who went forth from this place shall never return, but shall die in the place where they carried him captive” [Jeremiah 22:11-12]. And do not be puzzled regarding what is written earlier [in Jeremiah 22, where prophecies about earlier kings seemingly placed after mentions of Zedekiah, e.g., Jeremiah 21:1]. For the beginning of the section is: “For thus says the Lord concerning the house of the king of Judah...” [Jeremiah 22:6]. [Jeremiah] recounts what the Lord had told him before Zedekiah reigned. And behold, he recounts what he prophesied concerning Jehoahaz (who is Shallum) after they had taken him to Egypt, and [also recounts prophecies] starting from “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness...” [Jeremiah 22:13] concerning Jehoiakim. And there it is written [Jeremiah 22:24] that afterwards he prophesied concerning Jehoiachin (Coniah), for so it is written there [“As I live... though Coniah...”]. And all three of these reigned before Zedekiah. And in the book of Ezekiel, where he said: “Take up a lamentation for the princes of Israel” [Ezekiel 19:1], who died [i.e., whose dynasty ended] and none of their sons remained as king. He begins with Jehoahaz, who is Shallum, saying: “And they brought him with hooks to the land of Egypt” [Ezekiel 19:4]. And the [second] young lion [Ezekiel 19:5] is Jehoiakim, whom the king of Egypt made king. [Concerning him, Ezekiel says,] “They put him in a cage with hooks and brought him to the king of Babylon” [Ezekiel 19:9]. And similarly, it is written in Chronicles: “[Nebuchadnezzar] bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon” [II Chronicles 36:6]. And afterwards, he [Ezekiel] laments concerning Jehoiachin [symbolized by the vine]: “...her strong stem was consumed by fire” [Ezekiel 19:12]. And after that, he laments concerning Zedekiah: “Fire went out from the branch of its shoots, devoured its fruit, so that there remained in it no strong stem, no scepter to rule” [Ezekiel 19:14]. And behold, it has been clarified that they took Jehoiakim to Babylon. And let it not be difficult in your eyes because it says “to carry him to Babylon” [II Chronicles 36:6] and does not say “and they carried him,” for behold, it is written concerning Zedekiah in Jeremiah: “and bound him in fetters to bring him to Babylon” [Jeremiah 39:7], and elsewhere it is written: “bound him in fetters and brought him to Babylon” [II Kings 25:7]. [Thus, Ibn Ezra argues, "to bring/carry" implies the action was completed]. And behold, it is written in Daniel: “In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar... came to Jerusalem and laid siege to it” [Daniel 1:1]. “And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them (va-yvi'em - וַיְבִיאֵם) to the land of Shinar...” [Daniel 1:2]. Now the meaning is: He brought Jehoiakim and the vessels to his [Nebuchadnezzar's] god's house... And afterwards it says: “and the vessels he brought into the treasure house of his god” [Daniel 1:2]. Linguistically, it is not plausible to interpret “and he brought them” (va-yvi'em) [in the first instance] as referring only to the vessels, because [if it meant only vessels, the specific mention later would be redundant; the repetition implies] the first "them" included Jehoiakim, since it [also] specifically states “and the vessels he brought...”. And it is written in Chronicles: “He bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon; and Nebuchadnezzar also brought some of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon and put them in his palace in Babylon” [II Chronicles 36:6-7]. And Jeremiah prophesies concerning Jehoiakim: “He shall be buried with the burial of a donkey, dragged and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem” [Jeremiah 22:19]. Therefore, the one who says that the “third year of Jehoiakim's reign” (whom Pharaoh had made king) refers to the third year of his rebellion [against Nebuchadnezzar, which happened later] is mistaken. And therefore, I needed to explain [as follows]: That “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim” (whom Pharaoh had made king), Nebuchadnezzar came against him and besieged Jerusalem, and captured it at the beginning of the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar [cf. Jeremiah 25:1], for so it is written. And behold, he [Nebuchadnezzar] took him [Jehoiakim] toward Babylon, and he [Jehoiakim] remained in fetters for about a year. Then Nebuchadnezzar commanded, and Jehoiakim returned to his kingship. “And Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him” [II Kings 24:1]. And Nebuchadnezzar or his troops came to Jerusalem, killed Jehoiakim, and dragged him outside the gates of Jerusalem. And his corpse was cast out and not buried, just as Jeremiah had prophesied [Jeremiah 22:19, Jeremiah 36:30]. And do not be puzzled by [the phrase]: “So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers” [II Kings 24:6], for behold, it is [also] written [regarding Moses]: “Behold, you are about to sleep with your fathers” [Deuteronomy 31:16], yet they [his fathers] died [in Canaan or Egypt], and he [Moses] died [in Moab, outside the land]. [The phrase simply means 'died', according to Ibn Ezra]. And behold, his son Jehoiachin reigned three months [II Kings 24:8]. And Nebuchadnezzar captured him in the eighth year of his [Nebuchadnezzar's] reign [II Kings 24:12]. This was the eleventh year [since the start] of Jehoiakim['s reign]. And Zedekiah reigned eleven years [II Kings 24:18]. And [the end of his reign/destruction] was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar [II Kings 25:8]. And behold, [around the time of the end of Jehoiakim's reign and] the three months [of Jehoiachin], Jehoiakim was killed and his son Jehoiachin went into exile. And do not be puzzled because you find it written [regarding an exile in] “in the seventh year” of Nebuchadnezzar [Jeremiah 52:28, contrasting with the 8th year in Kings for Jehoiachin's exile], and similarly concerning Zedekiah, [an exile is mentioned in] the eighteenth year [Jeremiah 52:29], whereas [the final destruction was in] the nineteenth year [II Kings 25:8]. For in the counting of [regnal years of] kings, both methods [accession year vs. non-accession year counting] exist. Do we not know that Jeroboam and Rehoboam began reigning in the same month? And behold, it is written that Rehoboam reigned 17 years [I Kings 14:21]. And Abijah his son reigned after him in the 18th year of Jeroboam [I Kings 15:1]. [This works, Ibn Ezra implies, if counting methods differed, e.g., if Rehoboam's partial first year was counted as year 1 (non-accession), and Jeroboam's wasn't (accession), leading to an apparent one-year shift]. And behold, I will explain this to you: One calculation [system] reckons from the Exodus from Egypt starting from Nisan [as the new year for kings], or for the creation of the world from Tishrei [as the general new year]. And [sometimes] a single day in a year is counted as a [full] year. [One method, non-accession] counts from the day the king began to reign until the completion of his [first calendar] year [which counts as year 1, even if short], [while another method, accession] starts counting year 1 from the next New Year. Therefore, the 18th year can [effectively correspond to] the 19th, depending on the counting method. And an analogy: [Consider a child] born on Friday before sunset in this city, which is Rûdôm (?), during the Tammuz season [summer solstice] when the day is fully 16 hours long. Behold, the son is circumcised on the morning of the following Friday, which is the eighth day according to the Torah's calculation [Leviticus 12:3], even though it is [only just over] seven full 24-hour periods later and lacks [about] 16 hours [from being a full eight times 24 hours]. [This illustrates how part of a day/year counts as a whole unit for the calculation]. And do not be puzzled because you find in Ezekiel [Ezekiel 19:9, concerning Jehoiakim, the second lion]: “They put him in a cage... that his voice should no more be heard on the mountains of Israel,” for Nebuchadnezzar's servants intended this [permanent removal], even though [according to Ibn Ezra's reconstruction] he returned briefly. And the meaning of “Do you think you are a king because you compete in cedar?” [Jeremiah 22:15] that Jeremiah asked Jehoiakim, is that the prophecy concerning him means: Do you think your kingship will endure because you compete in [building luxurious palaces with] cedar? And now the difficult question remains: I have already mentioned that Zedekiah was 24 years old when his father died. Therefore, at the time of Jehoiakim's death and Jehoiachin's exile [approx. 11 years later], he would have been 35 years old (24 + 11 = 35). Yet it is written: “Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign” [II Kings 24:18; II Chronicles 36:11]! And this calculation [can be resolved if we understand] that he was called 'king' [or recognized as such by some] when he was 21 years old, [an event that happened earlier than his final accession]. The proof is what is written in Jeremiah: “In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah,” the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah to make bonds and yokes and send them “to the king of Edom, the king of Moab... by the hand of the messengers who had come to Jerusalem unto Zedekiah king of Judah” [Jeremiah 27:1-3]. For these [foreign] kings heard that Josiah had been killed, and they thought that Zedekiah, who was made king (or: who became designated as king) when he was 21 years old, would reign after him [Josiah, perhaps seen as the legitimate Davidic heir, despite Jehoiakim being installed by Egypt]. And there is no counter-argument from the [brief] reign of Jehoahaz, because the 'people of the land' made him king, and [the foreign kings] did not heed him (or perhaps: his brief reign was not widely known or considered stable), for he reigned only three months. [So, Ibn Ezra concludes, the reference to Zedekiah being 21 when he began to reign refers to this earlier point when he gained some recognition, likely around the 3rd/4th year of Jehoiakim, reconciling Jeremiah 27 with Kings/Chronicles]. There remains something [else] in the passage [of Jeremiah 27-28] to explain: namely, “And to Zedekiah king of Judah I spoke...” [Jeremiah 27:12]. Now, Jeremiah relates this matter of the yokes to Zedekiah at the time of his [main] reign after Jehoiachin's exile, and told him: “Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon...” [Jeremiah 27:12]. And there it is written [in the next chapter]: “And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year...” [Jeremiah 28:1]. [This presents a sequence issue: yokes made under Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 27:1), message delivered to Zedekiah later (Jeremiah 27:12), yoke broken in Zedekiah's 4th year (Jeremiah 28:1)]. And the meaning of “in the fourth year” [in Jeremiah 28:1, Ibn Ezra suggests] relates to when Jehoiakim rebelled against the king of Babylon [which was after 3 years of service, hence in his 4th year of vassalage, connecting Jeremiah 28 to the timing of Jeremiah 27]. And there is one [possible] harmonization: that Jeremiah prepared the yokes in the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign, but [delivered the message and] sent them [symbolically] in the first year of Zedekiah's reign. However, there is no [strong textual] basis for this harmonization. And there was a great commentator in Spain, who explained books with grammatical precision, and he explained [Jeremiah 27:1, reading 'Zedekiah' where the text has 'Jehoiakim'] and said: that 'Zedekiah' [should be read] instead of 'Jehoiakim'. And similarly he said [interpreting allegorically or emending text]: 'And after Absalom, he did not turn aside' [I Kings 2:28] means 'for he is Solomon'; and 'And it was on the seventh day' means 'which is the fourth [day]'; and 'Set bounds around the mountain' [Exodus 19:12] means 'which is the people'. And similarly [he interpreted] many words, about two hundred of them. And the wind carries them all away! For how is it possible in language that a person says one word and intends another?! One who says such things is considered among the insane! And I have already refuted all of them [these types of interpretations, perhaps elsewhere]. And it is better for him [such a commentator] to say 'I do not know,' than to overturn the words of the living God.

THE EMIM ABODE THEREIN FORMERLY etc. “You [Moses] might think that this is the land of the Rephaim which I gave to Abraham¹³³Genesis 15:20. because the Emim, who are Rephaim, dwelled there formerly, but this [the land of the Moabites] is not the land [that I promised to Abraham], because I drove out those Rephaim from before the children of Lot and settled them in place of the Rephaim. Those Emim were considered Rephaim,¹³⁴In our texts of Rashi this is marked as a comment upon Verse 11: “They also were accounted Rephaim, even as the Anakim (giants).” This is interpreted by Rashi to mean: “The Emim who formerly lived in the lands of Ammon and Moab were accounted as Rephaim, that is, the Anakim, (giants). But those lands of Ammon and Moab were not the land of the Rephaim which I promised to Abraham.” Therefore Moses was not to wage war against the lands of Ammon and Moab. like Anakim (giants) who are called Rephaim [from the root raphoh — weak] because the hands of everyone who sees them become ‘weak.’ Emim [from the root eimah — fear] are so called because their ‘dread’ lays upon people.” This is Rashi’s language. And similarly he wrote [further, in connection with the land of Ammon of which Scripture states], That also is accounted a land of Rephaim:¹³⁵Further, Verse 20. “because the Rephaim dwelled there formerly, but that [land] is not what I gave to Abraham.”
But I wonder at the words of the Rabbi! Why should Scripture explain to us concerning the land of Ammon and Moab that it is not the land of Rephaim which He gave to Abraham? Was it to state that it was not due to Israel and was not part of the land which G-d swore to their fathers to give them? [That could not be the reason! On the contrary,] Scripture states only, because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession¹³⁶Verse 19. meaning that, although it was part of Abraham’s inheritance, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave it to the children of Lot for Abraham’s sake. As Rashi himself wrote:¹³⁷Here on Verse 5. “[The lands of] two nations [from among the ten nations originally given to Abraham — Genesis 15:19-21], I gave to the children of Lot [Ammon and Moab] as a reward because Lot went with Abraham to Egypt¹³⁸Genesis 13:1. and kept silent concerning what Abraham said about his wife, ‘she is my sister.’” Moreover, the Rabbi himself wrote with reference to Esau:¹³⁷Here on Verse 5. “[The lands of] ten nations¹³⁹Ibid., 15:19-21: the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite; and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim; and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite. I gave to Abraham. Seven of them will be yours. [Concerning the lands of] the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite — which are Ammon and Moab, and Mount Seir — one [i.e., Mount Seir] belongs to Esau, and two of them to the children of Lot.” And if so, the lands of Ammon and Moab, and Mount Seir were certainly of the inheritance of Abraham; why then did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Moses that he should not think that this [land of Ammon and Moab] is the land of Rephaim which was given to Abraham? What difference is there between [the lands of] the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite [which were promised to Abraham but given to the children of Lot and Esau], and [the land of] the Rephaim [which was also promised to Abraham]?¹⁴⁰In other words, Rashi wrote of the lands of the Kenite, etc., that, notwithstanding the fact that they were of the inheritance of Abraham, they were still given to the children of Lot for the reason stated by Rashi that Lot protected Abraham’s secret in Egypt. Similarly we could say that the land of the Rephaim, too, was originally destined for Abraham, but that G-d gave it to another nation. Therefore, on what does Rashi base his assertion that this land was not the land of Rephaim promised to Abraham? Moreover, the expression Rephaim dwelled there ‘l’phanim’ (of old)¹³⁵Further, Verse 20. indicates that it belongs to them because they dwelled there before anyone else, as in the verse ‘l’phanim’ (of old) Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth¹⁴¹Psalms 102:26. [thus raising another question on Rashi’s assertion: If the Rephaim lived there “of old,” why was this land given to the children of Lot]?
But the interpretation of the verses is the opposite of the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] words. It was because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, Be not at enmity with Moab etc. because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession,¹⁴²Verse 9. Scripture tells that the land was indeed due to the seed of Abraham except that He gave it to the children of Lot. Scripture further says that in that land there dwelled of old a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim,¹⁴³Verse 10 before us. and, therefore, the Moabites called them ‘Emim’¹⁴⁴Verse 11. because of the great “dread” which they cast upon those who saw them. Now G-d, in honor of Abraham, performed a miracle for the children of Lot. They defeated [the Emim] and drove them from before them; it is therefore not proper to take from them by force the land which G-d gave them through a miracle. ‘Yeichashvu’ [They were also ‘yeichashvu’ Rephaim]¹⁴⁴Verse 11. is an expression of importance and esteem, similar to the following: he was despised, and we did not ‘chashavnuhu’ (esteem him);¹⁴⁵Isaiah 53:3. who shall not ‘yachshovu’ (regard) silver?;¹⁴⁶Ibid., 13:17. for how little is he ‘nechshav’ (esteemed)?¹⁴⁷Ibid., 2:22. and so many others. And in the language of the Sages we find the expression adam chashuv (an esteemed person).¹⁴⁸Berachoth 19a.
This is why Scripture placed the statements in proximity to [the verse that discussed the lands of Ammon and Moab, the children of Lot]. And in Seir the Horim abode formerly.¹⁴⁹Verse 12. It declares that for the same reason He stated [for restraining Israel from attacking] Moab, He likewise withheld them [Israel] from attacking the land of Seir. Because formerly it also belonged to the Horim, and it was part of the gift to Abraham — for the Horite is identical with the Hivite, and they [the Hivites] were of the children of Canaan, as it is said, Esau took his wives of the daughters of ‘Canaan’ etc. and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon ‘the Hivite’¹⁵⁰Genesis 36:2. and Zibeon was of the sons of Seir ‘the Horite,’ the inhabitants of the land.¹⁵¹Ibid., Verse 20. So, also, wherever the inheritance of Israel is mentioned, the Hivite is always included with the Canaanite among the seven nations,¹⁵²See further, 7:1, etc. because the Hivite is enumerated as the sixth son among the children of Canaan.¹⁵³See Genesis 10:17. You will also see this in the narrative of the war of Amraphel which he fought against the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zebaiim, and Zoar,¹⁵⁴See ibid., 14:8-9. who were Canaanite kings. They [Amraphel and his associates] smote ‘the Rephaiim’ in Ashteroth-karnaim,¹⁵⁵Ibid., Verse 5. and ‘the Horite’ in their mountain, Seir,¹⁵⁶Ibid., Verse 6. for the Horite and the Rephaim belonged to the Canaanite kings.
It is possible that [the Horite] was called Hivite [from the term chivi — a snake] because he was like a serpent in the way.¹⁵⁷Ibid., 49:17. He was also called the Horite from the noun ‘chor’ (the hole of) the asp.¹⁵⁸Isaiah 11:8. For names [like Horite, Hivite] preserve the meaning and change letters, like Zerach (Zerah)¹⁵⁹Numbers 26:13. The Hebrew word Zerach means “shining.” and Tzochar (Zohar),¹⁶⁰Exodus 6:15. Tzochar and Zerach both are names for the same son of Simeon. of the expression: and ‘tzochar’ (white) wool;¹⁶¹Ezekiel 27:18. ‘tzchoroth’ (white) asses,¹⁶²Judges 5:10. Ramban thus shows that the names Zerach and Tzochar (from the words “shining” and “white”) both refer to the same person although the letters in the names interchange. [and in the case of the Horite and Hivite, the names were chosen to suggest the treacherous, snake-like nature of the people]. They also assign new names to praise [someone]. Thus the name Ya’akov (Jacob), an expression of guile or of deviousness,¹⁶³Genesis 27:36. — Ibid., 32:29 [Jacob’s name changed to Israel]. was changed to Israel [from the word sar (prince)] and they called him Yeshurun (Jeshurun)¹⁶⁴Further, 32:15. from the expression whole-hearted ‘v’yashar’ (and upright).¹⁶⁵Job 1:1.
Thus Scripture is stating that the Horites [whose land was] given to Abraham¹⁶⁶Since the Horites are identical with the Hivites, as explained above, and the Hivites were children of Canaan, and the Canaanite is among the ten nations whose lands were given to Abraham (Genesis 15:21), it follows that the land of the Horites was given to Abraham. dwelled formerly in Seir, and the children of Esau who are of the seed of Abraham succeeded them and dwelled in their stead by a miraculous event. The Horites were a populous nation in their land and the children of Esau came to dwell there and overpowered them just as Israel did to the remaining nations [in the land that was] promised to Abraham, that G-d gave them in His great power. Thus G-d divided [the lands of] all these [ten] nations among the seed of Abraham — one to Esau, and the balance to Israel who was the firstborn son.¹⁶⁷See Exodus 4:22. It is therefore not proper to steal from Esau what G-d caused him to inherit, since G-d would be angry with anyone who would forcibly take from him [Esau] the inheritance that He, blessed be He, caused him to inherit, just as He would be wroth with him who would forcibly take the Land from Israel after He caused him [Israel] to inherit it, just as it says, As for all Mine evil neighbors, that touch the inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit.¹⁶⁸Jeremiah 12:14. This is the sense of the expression mentioned here, as Israel ‘did’ unto the Land of his inheritance,¹⁶⁹Verse 12. This would seem to indicate that at the time that Esau conquered his land, Israel had already conquered theirs. But Israel had, at that time, not taken possession of any land. when it was not yet done! [But the meaning thereof is as explained: that just as G-d would be wroth with him who would rob Israel of his inheritance after He will have given it to him, in the same way, He does not give Israel the right to take the land of Esau after having given it to him.]
Similarly He further said with reference to [the land of] the children of Ammon that it is of the land of the Rephaim [which G-d gave to Abraham]¹⁷⁰Genesis 15:20. for that, too, belonged first to the Rephaim. The Ammonites called them Zamzummim,¹⁷¹Further, Verse 20. from the expression ‘z’mamo (his evil scheme) do not further,¹⁷²Psalms 140:9. except that [the letters zayin and mem] are doubled [in the name “Zamzummim”], which thus indicates “the people from whom nothing is withheld which they purpose to do.”¹⁷³See Genesis 11:6.

לזרח OF ZERAH — He is identical with Zohar (mentioned in Exodus 6:15 as a son of Simeon), which is an expression equivalent to צהר, shining (a synonym of זרח). However, the family of אהוד (mentioned there) had ceased to exist by now. The same was the case with five families of the tribe of Benjamin, for with ten sons did Benjamin go down to Egypt and here it enumerates only five. Similarly with Ezbon of the tribe of Gad. So you have seven families that had become extinct (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 5). — And I have found in the Talmud Yerushalmi Yoma 1:2 the reason why these seven families were now extinct: that when Aaron died the clouds of glory departed and the Canaanites came to wage war against Israel. These therefore set their hearts on returning to Egypt and turned back eight stages from Mount Hor to Moserah, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 10:6) “And the children of Israel journeyed from Bene Jaakon to Moserah; there Aaron died”. But did he not die at Mount Hor and from Moserah to Mount Hor there were eight stages in a backward direction? But the explanation is that they turned back, and the Levites pursued them to force them to return and slew of them seven families. And besides these, of the sons of Levi there fell four families: the families of Shimei and Uzzieli, and of the three sons of Izhar (Exodus 6:21) only the family of one son, Korah, is enumerated here, v. 58, so that the family of Izhar may be regarded as extinct — making three families missing. And as regards the fourth family I do not know which of those mentioned in 3:21, 27, 33, it was that had become extinct by now (Talmud Yerushalmi Sotah 1:10; Yoma 1:1). But Rabbi Tanchuma (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 5) explained that they (the families not mentioned here) died by the plague in the matter of Balaam. But this can hardly be so, because according to the deficiency that shows itself in the tribe of Simeon in this census, as compared with the first census in the wilderness of Sinai (1:23), it would appear that all the twenty four thousand who died of that plague (Numbers 25:9) must have fallen from the tribe of Simeon.