Commento su Numeri 21:1

וישמע הכנעני AND THE CANAANITE HEARD — He heard that Aaron had died and that the clouds of glory had disappeared and he believed that now he was at liberty to wage war against Israel, as it is related in Rosh Hashana 3a; Amalek was from olden times a whip for chastising Israel — always held in readiness to be God's agent for Israels punishment (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 18).

AND THE CANAANITE, THE KING OF ARAD, HEARD. We find [mentioned] amongst the conquests of Joshua: the king of Arad, one.²¹⁷Joshua 12:14. Ramban is to ask: since the verse in Joshua clearly indicates that Arad was in Canaan proper, to the west of the river Jordan: so how — as indicated in this section — could its king fight against Israel whilst they were still on the eastern bank of the Jordan: Moreover, in the section dealing with the [stages of the Israelites’] journeyings [in the wilderness], it is written, And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan,²¹⁸Further, 33:40. and Scripture does not refer to [that land which is] on the eastern side of the Jordan as “the land of Canaan” without qualification, just as He said, the land of Canaan according to the borders thereof.²¹⁹Ibid., 34:2. Verses 10-12 ibid., define the eastern boundary of Canaan as the Jordan: hence we see that the word “Canaan” does not include land east of the Jordan. So the question reappears: how come that the king of Arad, a land west of the Jordan, came to fight the children of Israel who were now encamped east of the Jordan? Furthermore, [if Arad was to the east of the river Jordan], Moses should have given the land of the king of Arad to one of the tribes of Israel [as their inheritance, in the same way that he divided up the other lands which he conquered]; but Scripture always tells²²⁰Ibid., Verses 13-15; Joshua 12:6, etc. that it was the land of Sihon and Og, the two Amorite kings, which Moses gave to the two tribes [Reuben and Gad] and to the half-tribe [of Menasheh], whereas the nine tribes and the [other] half-tribe [of Menasheh] received their inheritance after they crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan. Perhaps we may explain [that the reason for this is] that Israel utterly destroyed their land, and did not settle therein at all. But that is not [the] correct [explanation of the word v’hacharamti in Verse 2]. Similarly Rashi explains [that the expression: And Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal, and said, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand,] then ‘v’hacharamti’ their cities²²¹Further, verse 2. means that Israel would dedicate the spoils [of those cities] to the Most High [and not that they would destroy the cities themselves].²²²Hence the question would be: If Arad was on the eastern side of the Jordan, why did Moses not give it to any of the tribes?
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that this king of Arad dwelt in the south²¹⁸Further, 33:40. on the western side of the Jordan, in the land of Canaan near the Jordan, bordering onto the land of the children of Judah, near Hebron which is in the south;²²³Above, 13:22: And they went up into the south, and came unto Hebron. and he heard from afar of the coming of the children of Israel,²¹⁸Further, 33:40. so he [the king] came by the way of Atharim²²⁴Here in Verse 1. to the plains of Moab to fight there against Israel. This is the meaning of the word ‘vayishma’ (and he heard) [i.e., he heard from a distance]. Therefore Scripture relates that he dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan,²¹⁸Further, 33:40. [to point out] that he came from another land, to the place where Israel was [encamped]. Then Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal²²¹Further, verse 2. that if He would deliver him [the king of Arad] into their hand, they would dedicate all that they had to G-d. And Scripture [further] relates²²⁵Further, Verse 3. that G-d heard their prayer, and the vow that they had vowed unto G-d, they fulfilled,²²⁶See Isaiah 19:21: and they shall vow a vow unto the Eternal, and shall perform it. for they killed them now in the days of Moses, as He had commanded, None devoted, that may be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death,²²⁷Leviticus 27:29. See Ramban ibid. and they gave all their spoils into the treasury of the House of the Eternal.²²⁸Joshua 6:24. Scripture continued by relating here²²⁵Further, Verse 3. that Israel also laid their cities waste when they came into the land of Canaan, after the death of Joshua, in order to fulfill the vow which they had made, and they called the name of the cities Hormah [Utter Destruction].²²⁹Ramban is thus saying that the account in Verse 3 of the destruction of the cities refers to an event which took place after Joshua’s death, and which is recorded in detail in the Book of Judges, as will be explained further on. Thus we must say that this future event was told by G-d to Moses, who wrote it down — like the rest of the Torah — at the command and dictation of G-d. Compare Ramban’s remarks in his introduction to the Commentary on the Torah, (Vol. I p. 9): “However, it is true and clear that the entire Torah — from the beginning of Genesis to in the sight of all Israel [the last words in Deuteronomy] — reached the ear of Moses from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He”. Since there is no difference in time for G-d, it is written in the past tense, for past, present, and future are all the same to Him. See also Ramban Vol. II, p. 192, for the reason why the tenses are often used interchangeably in prophetic statements. It is with reference to this that it is stated in the Book of Judges, And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad,²³⁰Judges 1:16. and it is [further] written, And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they smote the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And he called the name of the city Hormah.²³¹Ibid., Verse 17. It was then that this vow [recorded here] was fulfilled, but Scripture, however, completed the account of the matter here, just as it did in the section speaking of the descending of the manna, [where it states]: and Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept. And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan,²³²Exodus 16:34-35. [an event which occurred] after the death of Moses, until the morrow after the Passover.²³³Joshua 5:11. Similarly, These are the names of the men that shall take possession of the Land for you etc.²³⁴Further, 34:17. constitutes a prophecy that these men will [still] live and function [at that time]; for it is impossible [to say] that G-d would specify for them men about whom there was a doubt [as to whether they would still be living; for if so], He should rather have commanded Joshua [about them] at the time of the division of the Land. [But since the command was already given to Moses, we see that the Torah speaks of future events, and that this constitutes a Divine promise that these specified men would live until the time of the division of the Land.]
It is also correct to say that already now in the days of Moses the Israelites destroyed this king [of Arad] and his people with the edge of the sword,²³⁵Exodus 17:13. and called the place of the battle Hormah, and after they crossed the Jordan, Joshua also killed the [then] king of Arad²¹⁷Joshua 12:14. Ramban is to ask: since the verse in Joshua clearly indicates that Arad was in Canaan proper, to the west of the river Jordan: so how — as indicated in this section — could its king fight against Israel whilst they were still on the eastern bank of the Jordan: who ruled after [the one in the days of Moses], together with the [other] Canaanite kings who ruled at that time. When the children of Judah came into their cities, they destroyed them as well, and called the name of the cities Hormah,²³¹Ibid., Verse 17. because [by destroying them] they fulfilled the vow which their fathers had made, and I will utterly destroy their cities.²²¹Further, verse 2. Therefore He stated here, and he called the name of ‘the place’ Hormah,²²⁵Further, Verse 3. but there [in the Book of Judges] it is written, and he called the name of ‘the city’ Hormah,²³¹Ibid., Verse 17. meaning the name of every city which belonged to the king of Arad, as they fulfilled their vow, and their spoils were dedicated to the Sanctuary. Thus [according to this interpretation] everything mentioned here happened at the same time [in the days of Moses], except that He mentioned, and their cities,²²⁵Further, Verse 3. [the destruction of which] occurred at a later time, when they came into their cities. It is for this reason that it says [here], and I will utterly destroy their cities,²²¹Further, verse 2. and does not say “[I will destroy] them and their cities,” because the verse [only] mentions their vow concerning the future, but they themselves [the people] died in the battle [at the time of Moses] and were destroyed there. And the language of the verse fits in well with this explanation of ours, for it should have said: “and He delivered up the Canaanites ‘into their hand,’ and ‘they’ utterly destroyed them and their cities, and ‘they’ called the name of the place Hormah.” But Scripture omitted the pronouns²³⁶Thus it does not say that He gave the Canaanites “into their hand” [which would refer exclusively to the hand of the Israelites of the days of Moses]. Nor does it say vayacharimu (and “they” destroyed), but instead says: ‘vayachareim’ [literally: “and ‘he’ destroyed” — i.e., the one who destroyed them — now, or later on in the days of Joshua]. Similarly it does not say vayikr’u (“and ‘they’ called”), the name of the place Hormah [in the days of Moses] but ‘vayikra’ [“and ‘he’ called” — the one who called — now or later on]. in order to indicate that He delivered the Canaanites into the hand of whoever of the Israelites He delivered them, some of them now and some of them at a later time, for G-d hearkened to their prayer, and they fulfilled their vow.

וישב ממנו, without killing a single Israelite.

וילחם בישראל. He fought against Israel. The reason the Torah had to write the words בישראל, instead of עם ישראל as it did in Exodus 17,8 when Amalek is reported as attacking Israel, may be that in this instance the Israelites themselves were the cause that the Canaanites attacked them. They had sinned. The words: וישב ממנו שבי, "he took a prisoner from among them," the word ממנו suggesting that the reason Israel was attacked at this time was Israel itself. Israel's sin at this time was their share in causing the premature death of their High Priest Aaron on account of the events at "the waters of strife." Psalms 106,32 attributes G'd's anger to the people when the Psalmist exclaims: "they angered the Lord at the waters of Merivah and Moses suffered on their account." Naturally, David did not only refer to Moses but also to Aaron who shared in that mission. He singled out Moses by name as he was the principal involved.

יושב הנגב..דרך האתרים, the “tourists” who were really spies; Moses had instructed the spies in Numbers 13,17 to enter the land of Canaan from the south, and had described the Amalekites as inhabiting that part of the land. (13,29)

וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד, “When the Canaanite King who dwelled in Arad heard, etc.” According to Rashi the “Canaanite” mentioned here was in fact the Amalekite, as we know from the description of the spies who reported that the Amalekite dwelled in the south of the Land of Canaan. (13,29) However, they had misrepresented themselves to look like Canaanites, and this is why the Torah here describes them as they appeared to the Israelites at that time. Nachmanides writes that Arad was one of the (legitimate) Canaanite kings (Joshua 12,14) Furthermore, in Numbers 33,40 this king is described specifically as dwelling in the south, in the Land of Canaan. It is not customary for the Torah to refer to the “Land of Canaan” without further detail (such as which tribe) except to the areas east of the river Jordan, as in chapter 34,2 later on. If this land had indeed been east of the Jordan, Moses should have included it in the allotment to the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half of Menashe. The nine and a half tribes all received their share of the land on the west bank of the river Jordan. Nachmanides therefore explains our verse as referring to a different king by the name of Arad, one whose territory was on the west bank of the Jordan, and this is why the Torah had to add that it was far to the south, not the lands conquered from Sichon and Og. [The whole problem is that if Arad had dwelled on the west bank, how could he have attacked Israel who had not set foot in that region as yet. Ed.] He assumes that this king dwelled between the river Jordan and the mountains of Yehudah, south of Hebron. He invaded the Israelites coming from another country. When this king heard that the Israelites had already reached the plains of Moav close to the river Jordan, the Torah reports that G’d accepted the Israelites’ prayer and delivered the Canaanites into their hands, and they made good on their vow and killed them now while Moses was still alive, who had decreed that none of the loot from that campaign was to be used personally, and it was all donated to the Temple treasury. The Torah added that even the cities belonging to that Canaanite king were placed in ban by the Israelites when they conquered them later in the days after Joshua’s death, and that they named that area Chormah. All of this has been recorded in Judges 1,16 where also the conquest of a town by the name of Tzefat is mentioned. At that time the tribes of Yehudah and Shimon co-operated in that campaign. In that chapter we are told that the sons of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, ascended from the city of palm trees, (the former Jericho) to the desert of Yehudah in the south of Arad etc. It is not surprising that these names surface already in our Parshah, as it is not unusual for the Torah to refer to place names that were known to the reader of the Torah in later years although at the time the Torah was first written, and no one had a chance to read it yet, these places had not been known by these names. An example is that in Parshat Beshalach Moses and Aaron were commanded to preserve a bottle of the manna and they are reported as depositing it near the Holy Ark as a memento for future generations, although in fact this bottle was filled with manna 40 years later, shortly before the Israelites crossed the Jordan and the manna would stop falling from heaven. It is also completely in order to interpret that Israel at that time placed in ban this King of the Canaanites, i.e. defeated him and his people by the sword and commemorated the event by naming the site Chormah, although Joshua defeated that king after having crossed the Jordan at the same period as he defeated the 30 other kings of the Canaanites. To add detail, we are told in the Book of Judges that the tribe of Yehudah and Shimon had performed this feat, not Joshua personally, although he was the commander in chief, and therefore all the conquests during his lifetime are credited to him, also. In fact, this particular battle occurred after Joshua’s death had already been reported in the Book of Joshua. The author of the Book of Joshua even added that there had been military considerations why this part of the Land of Israel had not been conquered earlier. (Judges 1,19) The campaign represented the payment of the vow the Israelites had made to G’d when the events that occurred at the beginning of our chapter took place. By mentioning the name of the site already here, the Torah established the link between these two events in the mind of the reader of the Holy Scriptures.

וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד יושב הנגב, The Canaanite, i.e. the King of Arad who dwelled in the south heard, etc.” Actually, this was not a Canaanite tribe but Amalek (Tanchuma Chukat 18). The King is described as a Canaanite as he decided to speak the Canaanite dialect in order to deceive the people about his identity. He hoped to thereby make the Israelites pray for deliverance from the Canaanite attack whereas they had not been attacked by Canaanites at all. If G’d would deliver them from the Canaanites he, Amalek, would remain unscathed. Israel were not taking chances as they appealed to G’d to be delivered from the attacker without specifying his nationality. They simply said: “if You will deliver us from this nation, etc.” (verse 2).

He heard that Aharon died and [the clouds of glory] departed. You might ask: What is Rashi’s source for this? Perhaps [the explanation of the verse] is like its plain understanding, that it was because “Yisroel had come…” as the verse continues. The answer is that Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “He heard”? It should have merely said “Yisroel came by the route of the spies and the Cannanite King of Arad came and attacked…” As the Torah writes (Shemos 17:8) “Amalek came and attacked Yisroel” and (Bamidbar 21:23) “[They] went out against Yisroel to the wilderness; he came to Yohatz and attacked Yisroel.” Similarly it says regarding Og (ibid. v. 33), “He came out against Yisroel, [he with all his people] to wage war at Edre’i.” Rather, it was because they heard that Aharon died and the Clouds of Glory departed. Furthermore one can answer that Rashi’s proof is from Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 33:40) where it is written, “The Canaanites heard…after Aharon’s death.” There it is clear that it was only because they had heard that Aharon had died and that the Divine Presence had departed from Yisroel. Rashi explains on that verse, “From here you learn…” The words, “From here” imply that he is explaining that his proof is from there, as I will explain there. Re’m explains: It is written above וַיִּרְאוּ כל העדה ["The entire community saw…"] (20:29) and Rabbi Abahu says (Rosh Hashanah 3a): Read this as וַיֵרְאוּ ["and they feared"] with a tzerei under the yud in accordance with Reish Lakish who says that here the word כי [translated in 20:29 as "that" but sometimes meaning "because"] comes to explain the matter that precedes it. [Consequently it means that they were fearful] since the community had become vulnerable because of Aharon’s death. It appears that this was why Rashi reversed the order of the verse and explained (20:29) “that [Aharon] had died” after “the entire community of Yisroel” in order to juxtapose it to the comment, “And the Canaanite heard.” R. Yaakov Triosh.

Kap. 21. V. 1. וישמע הכנעני (siehe zu vorigem Verse). — הכנעני: wohl die erste zu dem eigentlichen Palästina gehörende Völkerschaft und als solche, d. h. sie hielten sich durch die Absicht von Jisraels Niederlassung im Kanaaniterland bedroht und warfen sich ihm daher an der Grenze entgegen. ערד, nach ת׳׳א Name des Landstrichs, nach Rosch Haschana 3a der Name des Königs, identisch mit סיחון, und zwar entweder סיחון das Nomen proprium und ערד ein Beiname, שדומה לערוד במדבר, einem Waldesel an Wildheit gleich, oder ערד der Eigenname und סיה ,שדומה לסייח במדבר :סיחון ein junger Esel (Baba Batra 78b).האתרים von תור mit vorgesetztem א׳, wie אגם und אגמון von אזנך) אזן ,גמא) von אכן ,זון von אכר ,כון von כר) כור) u. a. m.

יושב הנגב, “who resided in the southern part of the Land of Canaan;” in other words, Amalek; we have proof that Amalek resided in that part of the land from Numbers 13,29, from the report of the spies. If these people were indeed Amalek, why did the Torah not call these people by their real name but called them Canaanites? [Amalek is descended from Esau, i.e. is a Semitic tribe. Ed.] When G-d saw that Amalek attacked the Jewish people a second time, He said to Israel: “they are not out of bounds to you as are the Edomites, although genetically they are as close to you or even closer than the Edomites, Amalek having been a grandson of Esau. You may, or even must destroy them, in due course. What applies to the Canaanites, i.e. that any of them who do not voluntarily leave their land you have to kill, men women and children, applies to them also. (Compare Rashi, who says that the Israelites mistook these attackers for Canaanites as they had dressed as such. They had done so in order to cause the Israelites to pray to G-d to help them against the Canaanites, not against the Amalekites.) Rashi apparently did not accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer hakalir, in his liturgical prayer recited on Parshat Zachor, according to whom, on the contrary, the King of Arad (Canaanite) and his soldiers wore the uniforms of Amalekites. Some commentators on this paragraph not namedunderstand our verse as having omitted a word, i.e. “and Amalek,” after the word “Arad,” in our verse. We have indeed found elsewhere that the tribe of Canaanites under the control of the IKing of Arad, lived in close proximity to the Amalekites. (Compare (Numbers 14,25) Compare also verse 45 there.

ישב הנגב THE INHABITANT OF THE SOUTH COUNTRY — This was Amalek,as it is said, (Numbers 13:29), “Amalek was the inhabitant of the south country”. But he purposely changed his speech, talking in the “Canaanite” tongue, so that Israel might thereby be misled and would pray to the Holy One, blessed be He, that he should give the Canaanites into their power, whilst really they were not Canaanites, and their prayer would be ineffectual against the Amalakites. But Israel perceived that their clothing was as the clothing of Amalakites whilst their language was the language of Canaan; they thereupon said, “Let us pray against our enemies in general terms (without mention of any name), as it is stated (v. 2) that they said, “if Thou wilt indeed give this people into my hand”.

THAT ISRAEL CAME BY WAY OF ‘ATHARIM.’ According to the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered the verse: “that Israel came by the way which ‘the spies’ had gone”], the meaning is that when the spies came and went up from the south²³⁷Above, 13:22. and returned, the inhabitants of the Land noticed them, and this Canaanite who dwelt in the south heard about them, and so he followed the same route which they had taken, until he reached the camp of the Israelites. Onkelos has interpreted it well. And our Rabbis have said:²³⁸Rosh Hashanah 3a. “What was the report which he [the Canaanite] heard?” — because they found difficulty with the verse in the section [dealing with the stages] of the [Israelites’] journeyings,²³⁹Ramban by implication differs here from Rashi, who quoted this text of the Rabbis on the verse before us. According to Ramban, the Rabbis made their remark with reference to the verse mentioned further on. Ramban’s reason for disagreeing is apparent, because in our verse it states quite clearly the reason why the Canaanite came, namely because he had heard of the sending of the spies, as explained, and therefore he went to fight against Israel. But further on no reason is given and no war mentioned. Therefore Ramban says, the Rabbis found it necessary to give their interpretation. which states, And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the children of Israel,²⁴⁰Further, 33:40. since it does not mention there any war, or any other event whatsoever. Therefore they said that the report was about the death of Aaron which is mentioned there,²⁴¹Ibid., Verses 38-39. and Scripture thus states that Israel’s enemies heard of the death of the righteous one, and they were consequently encouraged by that event to fight against Israel. Likewise the Rabbis have said²⁴²Tanchuma, Chukath 18. that this Canaanite was Amalek, and [therefore the Israelites] did not conquer his land, nor take any part of it; but they completely destroyed their cities.

האתרים, the letter א at the beginning is similar to the letter א at the beginning of the word אפרוח or in the word אתמול, which is a variant of תמול, meaning “yesterday.” There are many occasions when the letter א serves as the beginning of a word.

This was Amalek. Rashi explains this so that you should not pose the difficulty that the verse is contradictory, for it is written, “The Canaanite [king] heard” and afterwards it is written “who lived in the south” which refers to Amalek. [To resolve the difficulty] he explains, “They changed…”

וישב ממנו שבי, "and took a captive from amongst them." We need to explain why the Israelites did not appear troubled by the fact that they suffered a defeat at the hands of a single Canaanite nation. We could have expected them to extrapolate that if a single Canaanite nation could inflict a defeat upon them, what would happen when they would face all seven Canaanite nations? After all, we find precisely such a reaction by Joshua when he suffered a defeat at the hands of the inhabitants of the town of Ai (Joshua 7,5-9).

דרך האתרים, the correct spelling ought to be התארים, the letters having been inverted similar to when we find כבשים spelled as כשבים, (sheep) or שמלה as שלמה (garment). Compare Joshua 15,9: ותאר הגבול, “and the boundary curved, i.e. was inverted;” When the Amalekites heard that the Israelites had marched around the territory of Edom from north to south, as stated in Numbers 21,4, they concluded that they would now attack from the southern region of Edom. They used this as an opportunity to attack them as they had displayed fear of the Edomites.

דרך האתרים BY WAY OF ATHARIM — by way of the south country by which the spies (תרים) had gone, as it is said, (Numbers 13:22) “and they went up by the south country”. Another explanation of דרך האתרים is: By the way of the Great Searcher (the Ark) which used to journey in front of them, as it is said, (Numbers 10:33) “[and the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord went before them] in the three days’ journey to search out (לתור) a resting-place for them” (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 14).

AND HE TOOK SOME OF THEM CAPTIVE. “It was only one maidservant [of the Israelites that was taken captive].” This is Rashi’s language, based upon the words of our Rabbis.²⁴³Yalkut Shimoni, Chukath on this verse. The Sages were induced to make this comment because they were of the opinion that Israel never suffered defeat at the hands of any enemy except at times when they sinned; such as at the first war with Amalek, because they had said, Is the Eternal among us, or not?²⁴⁴Exodus 17:7. and at the second [war with Amalek]²⁴⁵Above, 14:45: Then the Amalekite … came down and smote them. on account of their sin in the [matter of the] spies, when Moses had warned them not to wage war.²⁴⁶Ibid., Verses 41-42. But in all wars which were by [Divine] command, not one man of them was missing²⁴⁷See further, 31:49. throughout the days of Moses. Therefore the Sages explained this verse as meaning that they [the enemy] took captive from Israel that captive whom they had in their possession, namely this maidservant whom the Israelites had [previously] captured from them. [The usage here of the term shevi (captive) in the sense of “servant” is] similar to the expression ‘b’chor hashvi’ (the firstborn of the captive)²⁴⁸Exodus 12:29. which means the firstborn of ‘the maidservant’²⁴⁹Ibid., 11:5. [and so here too the word shevi denotes a maidservant], since Scripture here does not say: “and he captured men from him,” or “[he captured] women and children.”
According to the plain meaning of Scripture, the sense of the verse is that these Canaanites did not kill any of the Israelites, but took a few of them captive, and when G-d [later on] delivered them into their hands, they brought them all back, and not a single one of them was missing. Scripture mentioned this in order to inform us that since the Israelites saw at first that the Canaanites were winning [the war], they made this vow to dedicate all spoil which they would take to G-d, and G-d hearkened to their voice. It is possible also that we explain that G-d was angry with these Canaanites because they came from a distant land to fight against Israel, and feared not G-d;²⁵⁰Deuteronomy 25:19. therefore He wanted that they should be utterly destroyed, and caused them to prevail at first so that the Israelites would vow to destroy them [and dedicate the spoils] to G-d.

The great pathfinder. This refers to the Ark, meaning that once they saw that the Clouds of Glory had departed and [the Israelites] only had the Holy Ark traveling before them, they came to attack, something that they had not done previously. Re’m. The other interpretation was necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why is it written, “The route of the spies.” Did the spies establish that route? Surely it had been established for anyone to pass through. Therefore Rashi brought the other interpretation. Accordingly, Rashi brings the other interpretation and as Re’m explains, that it was because only the Ark traveled before them, but the Clouds of Glory had departed that [the Amalekites] came to attack. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why the Torah writes האתרים in the plural form, since it was referring only to the Holy Ark [which is singular]. Therefore Rashi also brings the first interpretation.

According to our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,20 the people described here as "the Canaanite" were in reality the Amalekites. The reason they were described as Canaanites was that they dressed up as Canaanites in order to confuse the Israelites. This is the reason that when the Israelites had prayed to G'd to deliver the attacker into their hands they had referred to the wrong nation in their prayer. When they found out that the attackers had not belonged to the seven Canaanite nations they were not overly concerned at the minor victory enjoyed by the Aamalekite at that time. Their losses had been negligible [a single maidservant according to tradition. Ed.]. Another reason they were not overly concerned was the fact that as long as they did not try and enter the Holy Land, i.e. at a time when the measure of sin of its inhabitants was full, they did not worry that G'd would deliver them into their hands when the time was ripe. Our sages offer a variety of reasons for all this.

וישב ממנו שבי (more lit.,) AND CAPTURED FROM THEM A CAPTIVE — it was only one maid servant (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 764).

One maidservant. Rashi had to explain so because the Rabbis state that Yisroel can only be defeated at a time when they act corruptly before Hashem. But here we do not find any corrupt behavior. Therefore he says that the captive who was taken here was merely the captive whom Yisroel captured from them. We need not ask how Rashi knew that there was only one, when perhaps there were two. For one can answer that the term שבי ["captive"] implies that there was only one. You might also ask how Rashi knew that the captive was a maidservant. The answer is that the term שבי implies a maidservant. For in Parshas Bo concerning the warning [before the tenth plague] it is written, “From the firstborn of Pharoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the maidservant…” (Shemos 11:5). Whereas later, when the plague struck, it is written “Until the firstborn of the שבי [captive]” (Shemos 12:29). Thus one must explain that שבי there refers to the firstborn of the maidservant and therefore the word שבי written here also refers to a maidservant. For if not so, Scripture should have clarified [whether] he took men, women or children from them.