Commento su Deuteronomio 2:10

האמים לפנים וגו׳ THE EMIM [ABODE THERE] FORMERLY — You might think that this is the land of the Rephaim which I gave (promised) to Abraham (Genesis 15:20), because the Emim who are Rephaim, dwelt there formerly (and they are one of the seven clans whose land you were to possess), but this is not that land, because those Rephaim I drove out from before the children of Lot and settled these in their stead (cf. Rashi on 3:13).

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 36:1. 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.

האימים לפנים, seeing that the descendants of Lot had no legal claim to inherit anything from Avraham at all, G’d announced that He had given them ancestral land just as He had done to the descendants of Esau who were descended from Avraham in a straight line. G’d testifies that both the Ammonites and the Moabites came to possess what they owned contrary to accepted norms.

האמים לפנים ישבו בה, “in former times the Eymim lived there.” According to Rashi the point Moses is making here is that contrary to a common belief that the land of the Moabites is the land that G’d had promised to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15, where these Eymim had been described as the Refa-im, this is not so, and the Refa-im that lived in the land at that time had not been the original Refa-im, hence the land you knew as being populated by “Refa-im” was not the land promised b G’d to Avraham; therefore dispossessing the Moabites would not be conquering land promised to you by Hashem. The name “Refa-im” applied to the people disposed by the Moabites was a “borrowed” name, seeing that this people were of similarly gigantic stature as the original Rrefa-im, G’d had driven them out on account of Lot’s children. Nachmanides has problems with Rashi’s interpretation, asking why he should interpret our verse as referring to lands of the Moabites and Ammonites, lands which were never intended for the Israelites, lands which were not identical with the land of the Refa-im promised to the descendants of Avraham. Rashi himself has explained that two of the three mentioned in the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15,19 the קיני, קניזי, קדמוני are tribes whose lands are not again mentioned in promises to the other patriarchs, two of which lands were reserved for the descendants of Lot, although they had been promised to Avraham’s descendants, (verse 19) in recognition of Lots’ not revealing to Pharaoh that Sarai was Avraham’s wife, [so that in a manner of speaking, Avraham had ceded this land as reward to Lot., pending the coming of the Messiah. The third of these tribal lands was reserved for Esau’s descendants, i.e. Edom, also to be eventually part of Israel, after he coming of the Messiah. Nachmanides’ point is that from a geo-historical perspective, why would the Torah bother to tell us about these territorial changes and not about others unless they were linked to the fortunes of the Jewish people and deliberately engineered by G’d? Ed.] He concludes that the correct interpretation of our verse (s) is the exact reverse of what Rashi has written, and that the Torah had reason to write these lines in order that we should not wonder about G’d being so insistent that we not harass either the Moabites or the Ammonites, in view of the fact that their lands had already been promised to our patriarch Avraham? If G’d had not had reason to give these lands to the descendants of Lot in the meantime, the present decree and caution would indeed have been difficult to comprehend. Proof that this is so is the very fact that the original inhabitants of those lands were such powerful human beings that unless G’d had specifically wanted it, the Ammonites and Moabites would never have been able to dispossess them. Seeing that this is so, now was not yet the time for the Israelites to grab these lands.

That I gave to Avrohom, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse need to say, “The Eimim originally lived there, etc.”? Rashi answers: You might think, etc. I.e., One of the seven nations that I gave to Avrohom was called Rephaim. If so you might think this [where Lot’s descendants settled] is the land of Rephaim. I.e., the Eimim who lived there [immediately before Lot’s descendants] were the Rephaim that I gave to Avrohom. But do not think this. Rashi continues to explain, “Because the Eimim, who are actually Rephaim, lived there originally, but the Eimim living there [immediately before Lot’s descendants] were a different people.” I.e., the Eimim that lived there originally, were already driven out [by the second Eimim] in favor of Lot’s descendants and [afterwards] Lot’s descendants settled there. Yet since this was no longer the land of [the original] Rephaim, why was it called “Rephaim”? Rashi explains: “Those Eimim were considered Rephaim.” Yet why were they called Rephaim if they were [actually] the Eimim? Rashi explains: Just as the Anokim were called Rephaim, etc., also the Eimim [were called Rephaim] — because whoever saw them, their hands became weak (rafeh) from fright. And they [the actual Rephaim] were called Eimim because of the people’s fear (eimah) of them, etc. This is how Rashi explains the context of these verses.

V. 10. האמים usw. Verse 10 — 12 sind offenbar nicht Teile der Anrede Mosche, die vielmehr mit V. 13 fortgesetzt wird. Es sind dies vielmehr Anmerkungen, die Mosche beim Niederschreiben seiner Anrede zur Erläuterung eingefügt hat. Es wird damit dem Volke zur Erhöhung seines Mutes bei den bevorstehenden Kämpfen gegen die riesigen Bewohner Palästinas gesagt, dass ganz so riesige Völker unter Gottes Beistand auch vor den Söhnen Lots und Esaus haben weichen müssen und diese nun im ungestörten Besitze ihrer Länder sind.