신명기 2:41의 주석

ונפן ונסע המדברה THEN WE TURNED AND JOURNEYED INTO THE WILDERNESS — If they had not sinned, they would have passed by the way of Mount Seir to enter the Land from its south to its north, but because they became degenerate they had to turn towards the wilderness which is between the Red Sea and the south of Mount Seir, and they proceeded along its southern side from the west to the east, דרך ים סוף BY THE ROUTE FROM THE RED SEA — i.e. by the route which they had taken on leaving Egypt which is at the south-west corner. From there (where they were at that moment) they went towards the east.

Had they not sinned, etc. Meaning: Due to their sin, Hashem did not manipulate the King of Edom’s heart to allow them to pass through his land.

Kap. 2. V. 1. ונפן וגו׳ (siehe zum vorigen Verse). ימים רבים, ebenfalls neunzehn Jahre nach סדר עולם (daselbst) י׳׳ט שנה היו חוזרין ומטורפין.

ונפן ונסע המדברה דרך ים סוף כאשר דבר, “we turned around and journeyed into the desert in the direction of the sea of reeds, as G-d had said.”

ונסב את הר שעיר AND WE COMPASSED MOUNT SEIR, the whole of the south side as far as the land of Moab.

The route they traveled when leaving Egypt, etc. Rashi is answering the question: “By way of the Reed Sea,” implies that they traveled from north to south, along the Reed Sea. Yet, they traveled from west to east in the wilderness! For this reason, Rashi explains: “The route they traveled when leaving Egypt,” i.e., when they left Egypt, they traveled diagonally towards the Reed Sea from west to east. Now, also, they traveled in the same direction, for they abandoned traveling the shorter route from south to north. Instead they traveled along the southern border of Edom, from west to east, until they came to the border of Moav.

[We traversed] its entire southern rim. One should not say that they circled Mount Seir on all four sides, and this is not possible. For otherwise Moshe would have entered the Land of Israel, because the land of Edom is on the border of the Land of Israel, as explained in the demarcation of the Land’s borders (Bamidbar 34:3). Therefore, Rashi explains: Only its entire southern rim, until the land of Moav (Maharan).

ויאמר ה' אלי, ‘the Lord said to me;” this was only in the fortieth year when we came to Kadesh.

פנו לכם צפנה TURN YOU NORTHWARD — Turn you along the eastern side of Moab, from the south to the north, your faces directed to the north. Consequently they were travelling along the east side of Moab, and this is what is meant by (Judges 11:18) “And they came by the east side of the land of Moab”.

Many say that this verse...has a hint for that time and for the future. This idea of “going around” refers to the many years which the Jewish People will be wandering (in exile). As long as Israel is in exile they are told, “turn to the Tzafon”. The rabbis interpreted this to mean, “If the time of (the nation of) Esau comes, hide yourselves. (ed.- The root of the word for North, Tzafon, can also mean “to hide”)

צפונה, in the direction of the land of Israel, seeing that they were at its southern tip at the time.

רב לכם סב את ההר הזה, “you have spent enough time being around this mountain.” G’d prevented the people from harassing the Edomites out of regard for the fact that their patriarch Esau had shown much honour to their mutual father Yitzchak. G’d does not shortchange a single creature of the reward due to it. The reason is so that such a creature would not have an argument in the world to come and G’d could say to it that it had already received all the reward due to it for the merits it had accumulated while on earth.

Turn yourselves towards the eastern side, etc. This command was given when they were at the end of the southern border of Edom. If so, it contradicts Rashi’s explanation in Parshas Masai (Bamidbar 34:3), that they first turned northward after they had traversed the southern border of Moav. [The answer is:] Nevertheless, Moshe had [first] requested from the king of Edom to travel northward through his land, but he refused. [And therefore] afterwards they needed to traverse the entire southern border of Moav, and then they turned northward (Re”m). But it seems to me as follows: The original intention of, “Turn yourself northward,” was to turn northward after coming to the end of Moav’s border. This is explained in the verses following. And when they came to the border of Edom it says, “Do not incite them (v. 5).” And when they came to the border of Moav and they wanted to pass through their border on the north, Hashem said to them, “Do not besiege Moav (v. 9).” Therefore, it was inevitable that they would have to traverse the entire border of Moav until its eastern side [and then turn northward].

V. 3. צפונה in der Richtung auf das Land.

רב לכם, סוב, “you have been skirting this land enough, now turn around (in a northerly direction) The word רב here is used in the same way as Esau used it in his encounter with Yaakov in Genesis 33,9 when he first wanted to refuse to accept Yaakov’s gift and said to him:יש לי רב אחי “I have lots, my brother;” he meant that he had been repaid sufficiently for any harm Yaakov had caused him in the past.

ההר הזה, “this mountain.” This is Mount Seir.

This idea of hiding means that if a Jewish person in exile finds some small amount of success he should hide it from (the people of) Esau, because there is no nation which is more jealous of Israel than Esau, because in their opinion everything (the Israel has) is stolen from Esau because Jacob our forefather took the blessings from Esau.

פנו לכם צפונה, “turn yourselves northward!” Devarim Rabbah 1,19 comments on this that when the time arrives for Esau to be supreme, it behooves Israel to move north. Another comment from the Midrash: G’d said: “I have only one Altar and he (Esau) is going to destroy it.” [It is seen as a concealed warning not to make common cause with the people who in the end will destroy the Temple. The Israelites (Hyrcan and Antipater) who called in the Romans for political reasons lived to suffer the consequences. The word צפון is understood as something hidden, exclusive; in other words: “do not share your exclusive and direct ‘hotline’ to G’d.” Ed.]

פנו לכם צפונה, “turn northward!” this commandment was not meant to be carried out immediately. It went into effect only after the detour around the territory of Edom and Moav had been completed. The people appear to have misunderstood this part of the instructions. This may be why in verse 4, Moses spelled this out in greater detail. If there had had not been some misunderstanding it is not clear why they asked the King of Edom for permission to cross his territory.

ונשמרתם מאד TAKE YE GOOD HEED TO YOURSELVES — And what is this "taking heed”? What follows: אל תתגרו בם CONTEND NOT WITH THEM.

YOUR BRETHREN THE CHILDREN OF ESAU. The reason for this expression is that descent of Israel is from Abraham and all his seed are thus “brothers” because they were all circumcised. This is the purport of the verse, Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is ‘thy brother.’¹²⁴Further, 23:8. Only the sons of the concubines¹²⁵Genesis 25:6. [of Abraham], Ishmael, Midian¹²⁶Ibid., Verse 2. and all children of Keturah¹²⁷Ibid., Verses 1-4. are not in this “brotherhood,” as we see from the verse, for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee.¹²⁸Ibid., 21:12. Thus Esau [Edom] is in this “brotherhood” for he is a son of Isaac, but Ishmael, born of Hagar and Midian, born of Keturah, although they are Abraham’s biological sons, are not in this “brotherhood,” for as G-d said to Abraham: in Isaac shall seed be called to thee. This makes it clear that the spiritual brotherhood of the Abrahamitic seed is restricted to descendants of Isaac. See my Hebrew commentary p. 351.

היושבים בשעיר, these were not the same Edomites who had come out with drawn swords when the Israelites had wanted to traverse their territory (Numbers 20). The Edomites mentioned in verse 29 of our chapter had at least sold food and drink to the Israelites.

אתם עוברים בגבול אחיכם בני עשו, “you are passing through the boundary of your brethren the descendants of Esau, etc.” G’d reminds the people that although these people are descended from Esau they are still to be considered as “your brethren.”
The word בגבול is an allusion to the fact that even Edom/Esau’s ascendancy (the Roman Empire) will have a limit גבול, although all the people of the earth are eager to join that Empire and they stream from all sides to join that culture. The Midrash uses a verse in Ovadiah 7 to prove this. The prophet writes: “all your allies turned you back at the frontier;” the second part of the verse reads: “they have duped you and overcome you.” The prophet describes how the one-time fair-weather friends of Rome have abandoned it and worse. The first half of the verse describes Edom/Esau’s ascent, the second half its decline.

V. 4. וייראו מכם sie werden euch nicht angreifen, ונשמרתם מאד: nehmet euch aber sehr in acht, dass ihr euch nicht das geringste gegen sie erlaubet. Oder vielmehr: sie fürchten, dass sie sehr von euch zu leiden haben werden, sie denken euch nach so langer Wüstenwanderung ausgehungert und von allem entblößt, so dass ihr jetzt zum ersten Male wieder in der Nähe bewohnter und kultivierter Gegenden über alles herfallen würdet. Nehmet euch zusammen und zeigt ihnen das Gegenteil.

ואת העם צו לאמר, “and command the people as follows:” Moses explains the warning here which he had failed to explain in Parshat Chukat. On the other hand, he does not repeat the details of the request in Numbers 20,1421.

וייראו מכם, the construction of this word follows the pattern we know from וישבו, veyeshvu, וידעו, veyedu, and ויאמרו, veyomru, as opposed to ויראו veyaru Deut.31,12, and וידעו, veyadu (Jeremiah 16,21) which follow the pattern of ואמרו, veamru, and והלכו, vehalchu All of the examples cited are in the future tense.

עד מדרך כף רגל — This means, Even מדרך כף רגל, as much as to say: even only treading with the feet (a single step). The text means, I do not permit you to pass into their land without their permission. — A Midrashic explanation is: I shall not give you of their land until there come the day of the treading of the sole of foot upon the Mount of Olives (the Messianic period), as it is said, (Zechariah 14:4) "And his feet shall stand [in that day upon the Mount of Olives etc.]”.

לא אתן…מדרך כף רגל, "I will not give you…as much as for the sole of your foot, etc." Moses meant that G'd would not allow the Israelites to traverse the land of Edom in order to impose their will upon them. However, if the people of Edom would volunteer for the Israelites to pass through their country on their way to the West Bank, G'd would not forbid them to do so. This was the reason for sending messengers to sound out the Edomites on the subject.

כי לא אתן לכם מארצם, similar warnings had been issued in respect pf the Moabites and their land the Ammonites and their land (compare verses 9 and 19). Moses had to mention all these warnings now so that the people would not become fainthearted and say that if G’d had wanted to give their land to us and He had been able to, why did He not first let us conquer the lands which were in our path instead of making us detour around these countries? Moses told the people that G’d did not want that these peoples be deprived of their lands.

Even as much as a footstep, etc. The word עד means, “Up until — and including.” It is as if Hashem said to them, “I will not permit you to have any control over their land, even as much as a footstep, to just pass through, without their permission. A similar use [of the term עד] is found in the verse (Shemos 14:28) עד אחד (Not one of them).

V. 5. גרה .אל תתגרו בם lautverwandt mit קרה קרא, jemanden oder etwas in eine andere Richtung bringen, oder ihn veranlassen, sich in eine andere Richtung hinzubewegen (siehe Bereschit 19, 8), daher ja auch ירה das Pfeilschießen. גרה מדון (Prov. 15, 18) Gemüter gegen einander in Bewegung setzen, sie gegen einander aufrufen. התגרה ב: sich gegen jemanden aufregen, sich in feindliche Gesinnung gegen jemand bringen. —כי ידשה וגו׳. Allgemein von allen Völkern heißt es: בהנחל עליון גוים (Dewarim 32, 8), dass nicht ohne Gottes Leitung die verschiedenen Stämme der Menschheit ihre Niederlassung auf Erden gefunden. Von Esaus und Lots Nachkommen, den Völkerstämmen aus Abrahams Familie, heißt es jedoch ganz besonders: ידושה לעשו נתתי, und so auch von Moab und Ammon (Kap. 2, 9 u. 19). Die Erinnerung hieran in dem Augenblicke, in welchem Israel sein Land aus Gottes Händen hinnehmen sollte, dürfte von folgenreicher Bedeutung sein. Sie vergegenwärtigt dem jüdischen Volke, dass auch über seinen Kreis hinaus Gottes Vorsehung in den Geschicken der Völker walte, dass Israel mit Gott achtender Scheu vor den Besitztümern der Nationen in den Kreis der Völker eintrete und Platz nehme, sich nicht als Eroberungsvolk begreife, vor welchem fortan kein Volk auf Erden in ruhigem Besitze sicher wäre; seine Kriegstat und sein Kriegsruhm sich vielmehr auf die Besitznahme des einzigen Landes zu beschränken habe, das ihm Gott vom Anfange seiner geschichtlichen Entstehung an bestimmt und verheißen hatte. So wird auch Nasir 61 a aus diesem ירושה לעשו נתתי nachgewiesen, dass auch im Kreise der noachidischen Menschheit das Erbrecht, eines der wesentlichsten Träger aller sozialen Entwicklung, göttliche Sanktion hat.

ירשה לעשו [I HAVE GIVEN MOUNT SEIR] TO ESAU AS AN INHERITANCE from Abraham. The territory of ten clans I gave (promised) him (Abraham); seven of them will be yours (the seven clans of Canaan), and the Kenites, the Kenizzites and the Kadmonites, — who are Ammon, Moab and Seir — one of them already belongs to Esau, and the other two to the children of Lot (cf. Genesis Rabbah 44:23; and Rashi on Genesis 15:19); as a reward because he (Lot) went with him (Abraham) To Egypt, and kept silent about what he said regarding his wife, “She is my sister”, he treated him as his son (and therefore he, through his children Amon and Moab, inherited part of the land promised to him) (cf. Rashi on Genesis 19:29 and Genesis Rabbah 51:6).

כי ירושה לעשו נתתי את הר שעיר, whereas Har Se-ir had been assigned as ancestral land to the descendants of Esau, the Ammonites and Moabites had been assigned their land as a courtesy to Avraham to whom they were related biologically. Moses also wanted the people to understand that seeing that G’d was so concerned with distant relatives of Avraham, how much more concerned would He be about the direct descendants of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov, i.e. the Israelites! He would most certainly keep a promise made to these patriarchs in the form of an oath.

To pass through their land, unless they grant you permission. Otherwise, there is a difficulty: Why did Moshe ask the king of Edom to let them pass through his land, although Hashem forbade it? Therefore, Rashi explains: “Unless they grant you permission.” But with permission, they were allowed to pass through.

כי ירושה לעשו, “for it is an inheritance for Esau.” This claim goes back to Avraham. G’d said that He had allocated the territory of 10 nations to the descendants of Avraham, seven to the Israelites, whereas the territories of the Keyni, the Kenizi, and the Kadmoni were given to Ammon, Moav and Se'ir. One of these territories was allocated to Esau, the other two to the descendants of Lot (Rashi).

Until the day comes when there will be footsteps, etc. There is a difficulty with the literal interpretation of this verse, for it should have only said, אף מדרך (even a footstep). Why does Scripture use the term עד (until), which denotes a time period? Therefore, Rashi quotes the homiletic explanation.

As a reward for his going along with him [Avrohom] to Egypt, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Hashem promised to give ten nations to Avrohom. Why then did He give these two to Lot? Therefore, Rashi explains: As a reward.

תכרו — This is an expression denoting purchase. Similar is (Genesis 50:5; see Rashi thereon), “which I have bought (כריתי) for myself”, for thus in the coast cities do they use for "trading” the term כירה (Rosh Hashanah 26a).

YE SHALL PURCHASE FOOD OF THEM FOR MONEY. If you should desire to eat of the fruits of their land you should not take it from them except for the full price¹²⁹Ibid., 23:9. at their pleasure, this being the sense of the word me’itam (of them) [purchase food ‘of them,’ i.e., with their consent]. Also you shall not drink water of them at all, except for money with their consent.

אכל תשברו מאתם, “You may purchase food from them;” Our author understands these words as a question: “Do you need to purchase food from them? Are you short of water?” In other words: “seeing that all your needs are taken care of why would you be interested to set foot on the soil of these people?” This is also why the Torah immediately continuous with: “for the Lord your G’d has blessed you in all your handiwork during all these forty years.”

V. 6. אכל תשברו, nicht mehr als für den augenblicklichen Bedarf (siehe Bereschit 41, 56). וגם מים, selbst Wasser, das doch seiner Natur nach mehr der freien Natur, als der Menschenbotmässigkeit angehört. (תכרו siehe Bereschit S. 49, 5)

כי ה' אלהיך ברכך FOR THE LORD THY GOD HATH BLESSED THEE — therefore you should not show yourselves ungrateful to Him by behaving as though you were poor, but act as rich people.

FOR THE ETERNAL THY G-D HATH BLESSED THEE. “Therefore, you should not deny His goodness by behaving as though you were poor; instead deport yourselves like rich people.” This is Rashi’s language. Now, I have not understood what he meant [by the next phrase in the verse, For the Eternal thy G-d hath blessed thee] in all the work of thy hand, since their blessings were heavenly blessings and they did nothing with their hands that it be blessed! Perhaps the expression in all the work of thy hand alludes to the sheep and herds which they brought out from Egypt.¹³⁰Exodus 12:32. They also had riches, herds, and acquisitions from the spoils of the Egyptians and the spoils of Amalek. Everything they possessed was blessed, similar to what is stated, Thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions are increased in the land.¹³¹Job 1:10. Moreover, the Eternal hath known thy walking through this vast wilderness and He supplied you there with all your needs — the manna, the quails, and the waters of the well — so that thou hast lacked nothing that is needed by wayfarers. And so it was — they bought food and nourishment from the children of Esau as Moses said [to Sihon], Thou shalt sell me food for money that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink etc.; as the children of Esau did unto me etc.¹³²Further, Verses 28-29.

ידע לכתך, He repaired or improved that way wherever necessary. The word ידע is used here in the same sense as in Exodus 5,25 וידע אלוקים, where it meant that G’d took benevolent notice of the plight the Israelites were in and began to rectify their situation. Similar uses of the term are found in Exodus 33,12 where Moses is the beneficiary of such ידיע, and in Deuteronomy 34,10 where he is again described as the beneficiary of such a ידיע, intimate familiarity with G’d.

לא חסרת דבר, even in regions in which there was no opportunity to buy any food, drink, or other necessities, you never lacked anything and you obtained it without even having to pay for it. When it was possible to purchase things G’d allowed you to do so.

"For the Lord your God has blessed you in all the works of your hands." For they had been close in proximity to Edom and the other settled lands, and they would do business with these folks and God caused this trade to be successful. "Knew your travels." As the Seforno translated, this is similar to the language of "and God knew...". Which is to say, God had a hand in your travels specifically. Any time the Torah says "knew", this is positive, as it says in the Sifri in parshat Behaalotcha, God only remembers for a blessing, as it says "God remembered us for good." And "knowing" is similar.

In all your handiwork. The phrase “handiwork” applies only to those who work the land, or in buying and selling and similar activities. The generation of the desert did none of these activities. Perhaps the blessing that is mentioned here refers to the great wealth which they brought out with them from Egypt, and this was their by right as payment for their work in Egypt. So the blessing was for their great wealth as payment for their handiwork.

Therefore do not show ingratitude, etc. This verse does not mean to say, “You therefore have no need for Eisov.” Otherwise it should say, “You have much,” or, “You have everything,” [instead of, “you have lacked nothing (in the past)”] (Gur Aryeh). The term, “Your handiworks,” refers to livestock, as it is written (Iyov 1:10), “You have blessed his handiworks, and his livestock has spread over the land.”

V. 7. כי וגו׳ בכל מעשה ידך, selbst in dem, was dir nicht wie Manna und Wasser unmittelbar von Gott wurde, was du dir selbst wie Kleider usw. zu bereiten hattest (vergl. Kap. 8, 4: ידע לבתך וגו׳ .(שמלתך לא בלתה מעליך: er nahm Kenntnis von deiner Wanderung durch die Wüste, richtete seine vorsehende Fürsorge darauf. Den Söhnen Esaus soll durch diese Berührung mit dem wider ihr Erwarten durch Gottes Fürsorge mit allem versehenen Volke einer vierzigjährigen Wanderung durch die Wüste eine Ahnung von Gott und seiner allvermögenden Waltung auf Erden aufgehen. Daher das ונשמרתם מאר (V. 4).

ונפן ונעבר AND WE TURNED AND PASSED, towards the north; we turned our faces to proceed along the eastern side (see Rashi on v. 3).

ונעבר מאת אחינו בני עשו, "we passed by from our brethren the children of Esau, etc." The reason Moses stresses the brotherly relations with Esau is to remind the Israelites that the Jewish people had abided by G'd's command not to cause any friction or provocation in their dealings with the Edomites. Another reason why Moses refers to them as "our brothers" was because they maintained correct relations with the Israelites, selling them whatever produce the Israelites were willing to buy. We know this from verse 29 in our chapter.

ונעבור מאת אחינו בני עשו היושבים בשעיר מדרך הערבה מאילת ומעציון גבר, “we moved on away from our kinsmen the descendants of Esau, who dwell in Seir; from the way to the Aravah, from Eylat and from Etzyon-gever.” We turned away from (ערבה) from the paths of the Lord and Torah; this is why the Edomites were not given to us to conquer at this time (a Midrash found in Lieberman’s edition of Devarim Rabbah, not the standard printed text) [The implication of the words עציון גבר in this Midrash is that instead of honoring the נעשה ונשמע the Israelites had pledged at Sinai, they regressed to man-made counsel, the result being a reduced-size Eretz Yisrael. Ed.]

We turned our faces to travel, etc. Rashi needed to explain, “We turned northward,” because the verse (3), “Turn yourselves northward,” implies the turning of their heads now. Although they were not commanded to do so until after traversing the entire southern border of Moav, nevertheless, [they attempted to turn northward through the land of Edom, but] after they saw that Edom opposed them, they left and traversed the entire southern border of Moav. Afterwards they turned northward, as they were commanded when they were at the southern border of Edom. Then they traversed the entire eastern border of Moav until reaching the land of Sichon and Og, which was to the east of the Land of Israel, etc. (Re”m).

V. 8. ונעבר וגו׳. Mosche hob aus dieser Berührung mit Esaus Söhnen nur das hervor, was für die zu weckende rechte Einsicht und Gesinnung bei der bevorstehenden Landesbesitznahme von Wichtigkeit war. Daher überging er die unbrüderliche Weigerung Edoms, den Durchzug zu gestatten (Bamidbar 20, 21).

ונעבור מאת אחינו, “we passed by our brethren, etc.” they did so by turning northward as they had been commanded in verse 3. Their point of departure was Ovot. This is why there is a most unusual end of paragraph mark (letter ס plus two blank spaces in our chumashim, in the middle of a sentence.)

ואל תתגר בם וגו׳ AND DO NOT CONTEND WITH THEM [IN WAR] — As regards Moab He forbade them (the Israelites) only war against them, but they may frighten them, appearing before them when equipped for war; therefore it is written, (Numbers 22:3) "And Moab was afraid because of the people", because they took plunder and loot from them. But about the children of Ammon it is said, (v. 19) “Do not contend with them" — no provocation of any kind, — as a reward for the modesty shown by their ancestress, Lot's younger daughter, who did not publicly divulge regarding her father's conduct, as his elder daughter did, who called her son's name “Moab" (i.e. born of the father) (Bava Kamma 38b; see Rashi on Genesis 19:37).

The only thing He forbid them, etc., war. The verse should only have said, “Do not intimidate them.” Why is, “with war,” needed? For note that regarding the descendants of Ammon it only says below (v. 19), “Do not intimidate them.” Therefore Rashi answers: The only thing He forbids, etc.

V. 9. ואל תתגר בם מלחמה, und rege dich nicht an wider sie zum Kriege, כי לא אתן (siehe zu V. 5).

אל תצר את מואב, “do not harass Moav.” G–d had to warn the Israelites not to harass Amon, Moav and Seir, as they thought that they were legally entitled to inherit the lands of those nations. Seir appears under the heading of Chivvi in numerous places, and it was one of the tribes that G–d had told Avraham in Genesis chapter 15 that his descendants would inherit. This is why the Torah wrote in verse 12 of our chapter that originally the lands occupied at that time were inhabited by a tribe known as Chorim, and that the Edomites, i.e. Seir, had dispossessed the original owners, and did not occupy it legally, so that it was not included in what G–d had spoken about to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15. The ”Chivvi” was not a separate nation among the seventy nations that we read about after G–d destroyed the Tower and mixed up the languages, but a sub-species, such as there were five such among the Midianites, each with a king of their own. Also Ammon and Moav occupied land previously owned by the Re-faim,”(verse 11) so that although the soil was part of what is known to us as “Palestine,” that section was not included in what G–d had promised to Avraham as lands his descendants would inherit in chapter 15. The Moabites themselves had referred to these people as Eymim, i.e. not ethnically part of them. Some of these “names,” were merely acquired names describing how others related to them, i.e. Eymim” are people that inspire Eymah, fear, in those who encounter them. Most of these “nations” were extraordinarily powerful human specimens not only physically but also mentally. This is why they were compared to Anakim, “giants.” G–d did not have to warn the Israelites not to harass the Canaanite tribes who dwelt on their original land, not having engaged in wars of expansion.

ויאמר ה' אלי: אל תצא את מואב, “the Lord said to me: do not harass Moav!” He addressed me in the singular mode, but meant for this commandment to include the whole nation. The reason for this command was because Moses was going to be buried in the territory of Moav. G-d issued instructions not to harass in one way or another, three nations, Seir, Edom, and Moav. Their territories were not to be violated. (B’chor shor) We know that the territory of Seir was not to be violated as this nation was also known by the name of Chivi, as mentioned in Genesis 36,2: אהליבמה בת ענה בת צבעון החוי. One could argue that this Chivi was one of the seven nations that G-d had promised to the Israelites. In order to forestall such claim, the Torah added in our chapter in verse 12: that the Chorim used to dwell in that region originally, but they had been supplanted by the descendants of Esau who had wiped out that population just as the Israelites wiped out the Canaanite nations when they received the Holy Land fromG-d. We are to realise that basically that land belonged to the Chorim. They were not part of the seven Canaanite tribes. The reason they were called חוי, as explained in the Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 85, is that the original inhabitants the Chori, were able through their sense of smell to determine which kind of soil was most suitable to plant what kind of crop on. The Chivi, on the other hand, were able to taste the soil and determine what to grow on that particular soil. Moav, their land had originally been called the land of the Refaim, (Verse 11) and it is possible that it had been given to Avraham as stated in Genesis 15,20, so that the Israelites had a certain right to claim it as their ancestral land. The Moabites used to call the previous inhabitants of that land: Eymim. Apparently, that was their original name, and they were not identical with the Refaim given to Avraham, so that the Israelites had absolutely no prior claim to that land. Ammon. The land occupied by the Ammonites were also part of the Refaim, (verse 20) In order that no one should be able to claim it as belonging to or designated for Israel, Moses tells us what the names of the original inhabitants used to be, such as Zamzumim. They are not to be confused with the Refaim given to Avraham. A different approach: The Israelites were specifically warned not to enter into any hostilities with these three nations, although they had been included in G-d’s promise to Avraham’s descendants in chapter 15 in the Book of Genesis. The peoples referred to as: Keyni, K’nizi, and Kadmoni, are simply different names for the people more commonly known as: Ammon, Moav and Edom. By using the expression: ונשמרתם מאד, “be extremely careful no to, etc.,” Moses impresses the seriousness of the sin to contravene this warning. The Israelites did not need to be warned concerning any other nations in that region, as they had never for a moment entertained any hostile designs against them, their lands not having been promised to Avraham. Rashi comments that the promise to Avraham of the lands of the last three nations mentioned in the covenant between the pieces in Genesis chapter 15, was not meant to be fulfilled until the coming of the Messiah.

ער is the name of the district.

But they were permitted to terrify them, etc. I.e., the Jewish People were permitted to terrify the Moabites.

נתתי את ער ירושה, “for I have given it to the descendants of Lot as an ancestral land.”

Do not intimidate them in any way, etc. Because [regarding the people of Ammon,] it is not written “With war.”

Who named her son Moav. I.e., מאב (from father), which clearly indicates [her] immoral conduct.

The name of the country. For if ער means the same as עיר (city), then the verse should mention the name of the city.

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.

רפאים יחשבו וגו׳ THEY [ALSO] ARE ACCOUNTED REPHAIM, [AS THE ANAKIM] — As Rephaim are those Emim accounted, even as the Anakim — who are also termed Rephaim because the hands of everyone who beheld them became weak (רפה) (cf. Genesis Rabbah 26:7).

רפאים יחשבו, these are accounted as Rephaim, etc. Why did the Torah consider it necessary to tell us that these people were considered Rephaim (as of gigantic proportions)? I believe that the fact that amongst the ten nations whose lands G'd had promised to give to Abraham's descendants in Genesis 15,20 the Rephaim are mentioned, the Torah wanted to inform us that Or which G'd gave to the descendants of Lot as an inheritance was identical with the Rephaim mentioned by G'd in Genesis. This is why Moses added: "the Eymim used to live there in previous times;" the "previous times" mentioned by Moses was the period prior to G'd's promise to Abraham, at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis chapter 15. Moses reminded the people that the merit of Abraham will stand by them.

יחשבו גם הם כענקים, ”they too were considered as equivalent to the giants.” This is the reason why mention is made of that fact in this context.

רפאים יחשבו אף הם כענקים, “the Rephaim were also considered as similar to giants.” According to Rashi, Moses says to the Israelites: “you thought that this is the land of the Rephaim which I have allocated to Avraham, seeing that the Eymim who are identical with the Rephaim used to live there. However, this is not correct; the territory of those Rephaim I have allocated to the descendants of Lot and I have made the descendants of Lot settle there. The reason that these Rephaim were considered as identical with the Eymim, fear-inspiring like the giants was that although they themselves were not giants, they nonetheless succeeded in making everyone afraid of them as if they had been giants. We find a similar construction in verse 12: ובשעיר ישבו החורים, “and the Chorim who had lived in Seir.” This is a reference to the inhabitants of that land before Esau took over that territory allocated to him by G’d.

V. 11. Stellen wie Psalm 88, 11; Jesaias 26, 14; Prov. 2, 17 und a. m. lassen keinen Zweifel darüber zu, dass רפאים den Begriff: Verstorbene, aus dem Leben Geschiedene ausdrückt, und zwar liegt es nahe, diese Bedeutung aus der Verwandtschaft mit רפה: schwach, kraftlos sein und werden abzuleiten. (Über die Bedeutung "heilen" siehe Bereschit 48, 1). Wenn nun andererseits רפאים ebenso entschieden: Riesengeschlecht, und zwar, wie es scheint, in noch generellerem Umfang als ענקים bedeutet, da hier die Emim und Anakim zu den רפאים gerechnet werden: so glauben wir nicht ganz und gar irre zu gehen, wenn wir meinen, רפאים bezeichne in dieser Bedeutung die Riesen als das "untergegangene Geschlecht", als das Geschlecht der Vorwelt, das in der heutigen Menschheit keine Existenz mehr hat und von welchem zu Mosche Zeiten nur noch einzelne Nachkommen im kananitischen Lande sich erhalten hatten. Sam. II. 21, 16 und 18, 22 das untergegangene Riesengeschlecht auch im Singular: הרפה, und dass dies kein nomen proprium ist, beweist der Artikel — אמים .ה (siehe Schmot 15, 16): die Schrecklichen, Schreckerregenden. Sowie ענקים die Reste dieses untergegangenen Riesengeschlechtes nach ihrer äußeren Erscheinung: die mit hochgestrecktem Halse bezeichnet, so אמים nach ihrem Eindruck auf den Beschauer.

רפאים יחשבו אף הם כענקים, “the Refaim were also considered as part of a race of giants.” They were considered as such not because of their height, but because of their physical strength. That they were not truly giants is clear from the fact that the Moabites called them Eymim. This was the name by which most people called them.

אמים — so called because the dread (אימה) of them lay upon the people. — So, too, (v. 12) the Horim dwelt formerly in Seir and I gave them over unto the children of Esau. (Genesis Rabbah 26:7)

יירשום — This is a present tense form of the verb; it is as much as to say, I gave them power that they might go on driving them out continuously.

וישמידום. Esau and Moav destroyed more land and people than they needed for themselves. They did so in order to wipe out all the former people residing there so that they could not one day avenge their defeat. This was a totally unjustifiable genocide. Neither Esau nor Moav populated all the land under their control The area known as Har Seir bordered on areas formerly belonging to Moav and was unpopulated by any members of the tribe of Esau. The same was true on the other side of that boundary; it was not populated by any Moabites. This is why Moses is speaking of G’d having told him that although this was in effect “no-man’s land,” the Israelites were not even to traverse this region, as, nominally, it belonged to either the descendants of Lot or those of Esau.

ובשעיר ישבו החורים, “and the Chorim used to live in the region of Se-ir.” The same considerations that are responsible for the Israelites not being allowed to make war or even harass the Moabites, (although their lands were on their route to the Holy Land, even) also are the ones why they must not at this time encroach on the land of Edom. That land had at one time been the land of the Chorites, who were identical with the tribe Chivi, mentioned in chapter 15 of Genesis above. Esau, Avraham’s grandson, had received it as a sort of dowry when he married the great-grand-daughter daughter of Tzivon, a prominent Canaanite belonging to that tribe. (Genesis 36,2) Tzivon, as mentioned there, was a son of the original Se-ir. It is possible that the reason why the Torah refers to that tribe as Chivi, was because in that neighbourhood there was a type of snake by that name that the people had to be on guard against. Various types of snakes including one by that name are referred to in Isaiah 11,8 where the lair חור of certain types of snakes such as פתן is mentioned. Compare especially Genesis 49,17 נחש עלי דרך. It is not unusual, historically, to find that names of certain places, landmarks and such, reflect a past association with some animal. Certain letters underwent repositioning when such places or animals were named. What was known as חוי may have been changed to חורי, so that the tribe known as חורי in the days of Avraham may have become the חווי in the days of his grandson Eau, or vice versa. During Avraham’s time these people lived in what later became known as Se-ir. It was most certainly something miraculous that the relatively few descendants of Esau should have dispossessed a far more numerous and well entrenched tribe. Moses may have referred to all these details to underline that possession of the descendants of Esau, Edom had been divinely assisted when settling in that region. It would not do to attack them, the time was not ripe for this in G’d’s timetable. G’d would retaliate against people who deprive others of their homeland unless instructed by Him to do so. He does likewise to nations who dispossess Israel of its ancestral heritage without having been bidden by Him to do so. This may be why Moses says כאשר עשה ישראל meaning as “Israel is going to do to Esau,” i.e. in the future, seeing that up until then Israel had not done any of this. [When G’d has promised, He will keep His promise, so that the promise by G’d that Israel would dispossess the Canaanites is described as fact rather than mere hope or even expectation. Ed.] Moses makes similar reference to the land of the Ammonites,

I gave them the power, etc. [Although יירשום literally means, “He will drive them out.”] For any present progressive action may be expressed in the future tense or past tense. However, an action referring only to the present, as in (Shemos 15:1) אז ישיר משה (Literally: Then Moshe will sing), must be explained as the thought to take action (Re”m).

V. 12. כאשר עשה וגו׳, wie bereits Israel mit dem Lande Sichons und Ogs getan, welches ihnen Gott zum Besitz gegeben.

כאשר עשה ישראל, “just as the Israelites did to the land which became their ancestral heritage.” Moses is speaking of the land settled by the tribes of Reuven, Gad., and half the tribe of Menashe.

כאשר עשה ישראל, a reference to the time when the Torah was committed to writing when the lands of Sichon and Og had already been captured. Those two kings had been most powerful; nonetheless, they had been vanquished within a very short space of time, contrary to accepted norms. This all showed that G’d had given these lands to the Israelites.

עתה קומו, seeing that it is forbidden to you to cross territory belonging to either the Moabites or the Edomites, קומו ועברו לכם את נחל זרד, which is outside the territory of either one of these nations. From that point you will be able to advance as far as the Jordan.

V. 13. עתה קומו ist Fortsetzung von V. 9.

והימים אשר הלכנו מקדש ברנע, from the place from which the spies had been sent out, 38 years had elapsed, seeing that the spies had been sent out in the second year after the Exodus.

V. 14. אנשי המלחמה, diejenigen, welche zur Zeit der Kundschaftersendung das kriegsfähige Alter hatten, die demzufolge bei der damals bereits beabsichtigten Besitznahme des Landes hätten tätig sein sollen, aus gottvergessenem Kleinmut jedoch vor dieser Aufgabe zurückgeschreckt waren.

והימים אשר הלכנו מקדש ברנע, “and the number o years it took us to walk from Kadesh barnea to the river Zered were 38 years.” Not all of these years were spent walking, of course, but the total period including the encampments was 38 years, until the last of the men of military ages at the time of the Exodus had died. The reason why the river Zered is named here is that it was the first of several rivers the Israelites crossed on their march north.

אנשי המלחמה, the over 20 year old males who were called to do army service when the occasion arose. [There is a note in some manuscript of the author explaining that the letter ה at the beginning of the word המלחמה refers only to the men who had ignored Moses’ warning after the debacle with the spies and had attempted to invade the land of Canaan without Divine support, suffering casualties as detailed in Numbers 14,44. When the general male population over 20 is referred to, the Torah calls them אנשי מלחמה. Ed.]

היתה בם [FOR INDEED THE HAND OF THE LORD] WAS AGAINST THEM [TO DESTROY THEM] speedily within a period of forty years, so that they should no longer be the cause for their children to tarry in the wilderness.

וגם יד ה׳ היתה בם, Moreover, the hand of the Lord was against them, etc. Moses meant that not only did the people of that generation suffer death in the desert, but they did not enjoy their sojourn in the desert while it lasted, as we have been told in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,21. The people suffered from a variety of afflictions prior to their deaths. Moses said מקרב המחנה "from the midst of the camp," to indicate that G'd made a clear separation between the people whose death had been decreed and the remainder of the camp. The former were in a constant state of groaning because of their diminution.

To be further delayed in the wilderness. For as long as any of them survived, their children could not enter the Land.

V. 15. וגם יד ד׳. Die meisten gelangten innerhalb dieser achtunddreißig Jahre an ihr natürliches Lebensende. Anderen wurde ihr Lebensende unter besonderer Einwirkung Gottes beschleunigt. המם ,להמם, eigentlich verwirren, bezeichnet wohl das Besinnung beraubende Plötzliche eines einbrechenden Verhängnisses. So hatte Haman die Absicht להמם ולאבדם (Esther 9, 24).

ויהי כאשר תמו וגו׳ וידבר ה' אלי וגו׳ SO IT CAME TO PASS WHEN [ALL THE MEN OF WAR] HAD COME TO AN END … THAT THE LORD SPOKE TO ME etc. — But from when the spies were sent forth until now, the word וידבר is not mentioned in this section, but ויאמר, to teach you that during these entire thirty eight years during which the Israelites were lying under God’s censure, the Divine speech was not directed towards him in an expression of affection, face to face, and with tranquility of mind — to teach you that the Shechinah rests upon the prophets only for Israel’s sake (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 13; Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:5; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1:1 towards end).

ויהי כאשר תמו כל אנשי המלחמה למות ...וידבר ה' אלי לאמור, “It was after all the arms-bearing men had finished dying, the Lord spoke to me, etc.” According to the plain meaning of text Moses is telling the people that as soon as the Israelites had become aware that all the men who had been 20 years old at the Exodus had died, G’d communicated once more with Moses and commanded the people to march past the territory of Moav.
According to our sages in Taanit 30 G’d had not spoken (individually) with Moses since the time the spies had died and the generation of the adults who had been redeemed from Egypt had been condemned to die in the desert. This proved that Moses’ elevated position was entirely due to the people he represented. When these people were in disgrace, Moses was made to feel this. This condition remained static for 38 years until the 15th of Av of the fortieth year. This day became a day of great rejoicing as the fact that G’d commenced His dialogue with Moses indicated that the people were once again in a state of grace. It was also a special day for Moses personally as it signaled the return of his prophetic powers. The reason that the prophetic powers did not already return to Moses on the 10th of Av, i.e. precisely after the anniversary of the debacle with the spies, was because at that time, in the second year when the decree against the people had been promulgated, Moses observed 7 days of mourning for the decree, a period when he would not have been the recipient of prophetic insights, seeing that a state of joy is required for a person to possess such powers. Now, on the 15th of the month of Av, both Moses and the people could rejoice simultaneously.
If you will peruse the text of the Torah starting with the debacle of the spies’ mission, you will not find that G’d addressed Moses, i.e. the words וידבר ה' אל משה. You will only find ויאמר ה' אל משה, i.e. a level of communication reserved for prophets of lesser stature, people who receive an “indistinct message,” the kind G’d referred to when He rebuked Miriam and Aaron in Numbers 12,6 (compare Baba Batra 121). This will also help you understand Jeremiah 1,6 who had said to G’d: “here I am only a lad, and I do not know how to speak, דבר.” He did not mean that he had a speech impediment, but that due to his low level of prophetic insight he could not communicate his message with the appropriate degree of clarity. He alluded to this by adding the word אהה before saying א-ד-נ-י אלוקים, The fact that G’d communicated with Jeremiah on the lower level of prophecy is confirmed by verse 7 in that chapter, i.e. ויאמר ה' אלי. [Incidentally, seeing that in Korach, etc. we do find the formula of וידבר ה' אל משה, this may be proof that the uprising of Korach had occurred prior to the debacle with the spies. This editor has always felt that Korach’s bid for power made little sense seeing that all the people who joined him were bound to perish in the desert, ignominiously, so why risk your life for such positions? Ed.].

The word וידבר (He spoke) was not mentioned, only ויאמר (He said). I.e., the term “He spoke” was not used affectionately, for “He spoke to me” is not mentioned, as it is here. Instead it only said, “He spoke,” which lacks affection (Maharitz). You might ask that, in Parshas Beha’aloscha (Bamidbar 12:1) regarding the verse, “Miriam spoke,” Rashi explains: “Spoke” implies harsh speech — not affection, whereas “said” implies affection. The answer is: Anywhere it is written, “Adonoy spoke,” with the Tetragrammaton, it implies affection. Though it is harsh, it implies affection towards Moshe. But not, “Adonoy said,” for this can mean, “Adonoy said through a messenger.” As in (Bereishis 25:23), “Adonoy said to her,” which was through a messenger. And also as in (Shemos 18:6), “And he said to Moshe, ‘I am your father-in-law Yisro, etc.’” And also as in (Bereishis 48:1), “He said to Yoseif, ‘Behold your father is ill’.” In contrast, “he spoke,” implies affection, for it means, “(to be speaking) face-to-face,” as it says (Bamidbar 12:8), “Face-to-face I speak to him.” Although to any other prophet it would imply harsh speech, regarding Moshe it implies affection, as Hashem said, (ibid. v. 7), “Not so is My servant Moshe, etc.” See Maseches Ta’anis (30b).

VV. 16 u. 17. ויהי וגו׳ וידבר וגו׳. Baba Batra 121 b wird in diesen Sätzen die Andeutung gefunden, dass während der ganzen achtunddreißig Jahre das Gotteswort nicht in der ganzen direkten Unmittelbarkeit wie vor der Botschafterversündigung an Mosche gerichtet worden, und wird daraus im Eingang der Mechilta und des Sifra bemerkt, dass nicht aus Rücksicht für die Persönlichkeit, des Propheten, sondern nur בזכות ישראל, um der nationalen Gesamtheit willen, Gott selbst an Mosche sein Wort gelangen ließ, und daher auch so lange die Nation den Folgen des göttlichen Unwillens unterlag, die Modalität der Gottesreden an Mosche eine getrübte war. Diese Andeutung findet רשב׳׳ם zu Baba Bathra daselbst und so auch Raschi im Kommentar z. St, darin, dass in Mosche Anreden bisher das Gotteswort an ihn immer nur mit אמירה bezeichnet war: ויאמר ד׳ אלי (Kap. 1, 42 und 2, 2 u. 9) und erst hier, nachdem תמו כל אנשי וגו׳: וידבר ד׳ אלי tritt die Gottesrede wieder als — דבור אל ein. Treffend bemerkt hierzu ja überhaupt nur die "Mitteilung" bezeichnet, die אמירה , (daselbst), dass ת׳׳כ zu ק׳׳א Art der Mitteilung aber völlig unbestimmt lässt, ja möglicher Weise nur den Inhalt, den Gedanken, nicht aber den Wortlaut zum Objekt haben kann und auch eine vermittelte Mitteilung bezeichnet. דבור aber bezeichnet speziell den artikulierten Ausspruch des Mundes, das gesprochene Wort, somit das Medium der Mitteilung, וידבר ד׳ אלי, also das direkt zu Mosche von Gott gesprochene Wort: ודבר ד׳ אל משה פנים אל פנים כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו. Dass die Art der Gelangung des Gotteswortes an den Menschen verschiedene Abstufungen kennt, ist aus Bamidbar 12, 6 — 8 evident.

ויהי כאשר תמו, “it was when they completed;” the reason why they did not cross into the land of Canaan at once was out of respect for Moses for whom it had been decreed that he could not enter the Holy Land, and it would have been painful for him to see his people crossing while he had to remain behind.

אנשי המלחמה THE MEN OF WAR — men from twenty years old and upwards, who went to war (cf. Numbers 14:29 and Rashi thereon).

כל אנשי המלחמה, “all the fighting men;” this refers to the ones who had begun to fight against Moses’ wish after the debacle of the spies. (Numbers 14,44)

וידבר ה' אלי, “the Lord spoke to me;” Rashi comments here that since the debacle with the spies G-d had not been reported as speaking to Moses, in the mode of dibbur, which signifies fondness for the person addressed. This line proves that the Jewish people were in disgrace during the entire thirty eight years since then, and if G-d had communicated such a communication is described as amirah as opposed to dibbur. The former is a reference to a very brief and succinct communication. During all these years,G-d communicated with Moses not on the “face to face basis,” while he was awake, but by nocturnal images.

אתה עבר היום את גבול מואב … וקרבת מול בני עמון THOU ART TO PASS THIS DAY THE BOUNDARY OF MOAB … AND THOU WILT APPROACH OPPOSITE THE CHILDREN OF AMMON — from here we see that the land of Ammon was on the north [of Moab].

כי לבני לוט, on account of his having been Avraham’s nephew.

V. 19. Siehe zu V. 5.

וקרבת מול בני עמון, “when you come near to being opposite the Bney Ammon;” actually they did not get to the boundary of the Bney Ammon, as their lands were to the east of both the kingdoms of Sichon and Og, king of Bashan.

ארץ רפאים תחשב IT (AMMON) ALSO WAS ACCOUNTED A LAND OF REPHAIM. — It also is accounted a land of Rephaim because the Rephaim formerly dwelt in it, but yet it is not that land which I gave to Abraham.

TEICHASHEIV’ (ACCOUNTED). The land of Ammon, too, is considered part of the land of Rephaim; in other words, it is included within it. Similarly, from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward ‘teichasheiv’ (is accounted) to the Canaanites.¹⁷⁴Joshua 13:3. So also, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin; for Beeroth also ‘teichasheiv’ (is accounted) to Benjamin.¹⁷⁵II Samuel 4:2. It is possible that such is also the meaning of the expression written above [with reference to Moab], these also are ‘yeichashvu’ Rephaim,¹⁷⁶Above, Verse 11. Scripture stating that the Emim who formerly dwelled there¹⁷⁷See ibid., Verse 10. are also “accounted”¹⁷⁸In Verse 10 above Ramban explained yeichashvu as an expression of importance and esteem. Here Ramban explains it as “accounted” [to the Rephaim]. Rephaim since they were part of them, and they were as the Anakim,¹⁷⁶Above, Verse 11. and therefore they [the Moabites] called them ‘Emim’¹⁷⁶Above, Verse 11. [because their “dread,” like that of the Anakim (giants) lay upon the people]. This is the correct interpretation.
Thus the land of Rephaim was very large, and from it, Moab and Ammon took their lands. The balance remained for the Rephaim themselves, for Og, who dwelled in Ashtaroth, was of them, as is stated, and they smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim.¹⁵⁵Ibid., Verse 5. And in the Book of Joshua it is written, and cut down a space for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim.¹⁷⁹Joshua 17:15. Therefore, Scripture says of the border of Moab and Ammon that it is “accounted to the Rephaim,” [still calling them “Rephaim,” the name by which they were originally known]. The Moabites and the Ammonites were the ones that changed [the name of the Rephaim] to other names: [the Moabites calling them] Emim and [the Ammonites calling them] Zamzummim.

ארץ רפאים תחשב אף היא, there can be no question that the Ammonites had no legal right to dispossess these people; the only reason why they succeeded in doing so was because it was G’d’s will.

ארץ רפאים תחשב אף היא, it is also considered the land of the Rephaim, etc. Rashi says that the reason this land was called the land of the Rephaim was that the Rephaim used to live there at one time; however, this is not the land of the Rephaim G'd had promised to Abraham at the time. I cannot see what forces Rashi to arrive at this conclusion. Where did G'd ever say that these Rephaim were not included in the ones whose land G'd promised to Abraham? On the contrary, whenever Rephaim are mentioned it includes all the people known as Rephaim. I have seen that Rashi supports his theory by saying that his source is the wording of verse ההוא יקרא ארץ רפאים (Deut.3,13). The fact that the Torah stresses there "this is the land called the land of the Rephaim," suggests that only that part of the Bashan was the land G'd had promised to Abraham under the heading of "the land of the Rephaim." The extra word ההוא means that any other land in which the Rephaim lived at different times was not considered as "their land" (compare Rashi in Chulin 60). I am not persuaded by this proof. Why do we have to assume that the word ההוא in Deut 3,13 is meant to exclude other lands occupied by the people known as the Rephaim? Maybe the word is only meant to exclude the district called Argov seeing it is not called "land of the Rephaim?" Logic would dictate that the word ההוא is meant to indicate precisely what the Torah refers to, not something the Torah wants to exclude. After the Torah had told us that the Rephaim used to live in the land occcupied by the Bney Ammon and the Moabites (the descendants of Lot) at that time, the Torah mentions that these lands were really included in what G'd had promised to Abraham at the time. Furthermore, the word ההוא was not intended to restrict except to tell us that at the time Moses spoke these lands were no longer popularly known as the lands of the Rephaim but as the lands of Sichon and Og rather than as the lands of Bney Ammon and Moav. In fact, even at the time when G'd made the promise to Abraham these cities were not known as lands of the Rephaim as G'd had temporarily designated these cities as the inheritance of the descendants of Lot. Rashi (2,5) himself explains that Abraham who had been promised these lands by G'd, turned them over to Lot (temporarily) who went to Egypt with him becaus he did not reveal the secret of the husband-wife relationship between Abraham and Sarah.

ארץ רפאים תחשב גם הוא, as the land of the Refaim which G’d had promised to Avraham at the covenant between the pieces. (Genesis 15,20) Even though these Refaim had been dispossessed; if the descendants of Lot could dispossess the Refaim of old, it would certainly not be a problem for the Jewish people to dispossess people who had come by this land not by ancestral right but by conquest.

ארץ רפאים תחשב, “it is considered the land of the Refa-im;” for this was also land originally owned by the Refai-im.

V. 20. ארץ רפאים וגו׳ (siehe zu Verse 10 — 12). Auch Verse 20 — 23 sind erläuternde Einschaltungen von Mosche beim Niederschreiben seiner Anrede an das Volk. Erst V. 24 wird diese fortgesetzt. ומזמים von זמם, der Bezeichnung einer geistigen Tätigkeit, die meist in schlimmem Sinne genommen wird, auf etwas Schlimmes sinnen. זמזמים daher: tückische Leute, die ihre ungeheure Kraft in den Dienst ihrer schlimmen Absichten stellen (siehe zu Bereschit 11, 6).

ארץ רפאים תחשב אף היא, “that land was also considered as land of the Refaim.” It was considered “as if,” but in fact was not. They were really Zamzumim, because they were always implicated in a war or in the planning of a war.

תחשב, although it is considered as “the land of the Refaim, it is not officially called thus, but is part of the Kingdom of Og the king of Bashan. This is spelled out in detail in 3,13. In that verse the Refaim referred to are the ones mentioned by G’d to Avraham in Genesis 15. This is why the Israelites inherited these lands.

ןהמעמונים יקראו להם זמזומים, “but the Ammonites called those people Samzumim.” This word is related to Psalms 140,9 זממו אל תפק, “do not let their plan succeed.” The doubling of the letter ז here reinforces the original meaning, i.e. that these people being so numerous and powerful cannot be denied anything they desire. The word תחשב here needs to be understood in conjunction with the name of Sichon’s capital חשבון, which already included the land of the original Refa-im. It may also be possible to explain the line רפאים תחשבו that the people in that land now are considered like the giants of ancient times, i.e. the אימים, a race which caused fear in all the neighbouring countries. The land occupied by the Refa-im was very large for after the Ammonites had captured some of that land, Og the King of the Emorite in Bashan was a giant dating back to these ancient times, something described in greater detail in Genesis chapter 14 where the defeat of the Refa-im at Ashtarot Karnayim has been documented. This is the reason why our verses describe the lands of Ammon and Moav as having originally been owned and inhabited by the Refai-im.

When we keep these points in mind we can understand why the Torah writes יקרא when speaking of the lands of Sichon and Og, whereas when speaking of the lands of the Rephaim the Torah wrote יחשב. Seeing the whole Jewish people remembered that Sichon and Og had lived in those lands the expression יקרא, "is called" (3,13) was quite appropriate. On the other hand, when the Torah speaks of lands whom no one remembered as having been populated by the Rephaim of old, the term תחשב "was considered" (2,19), is more appropriate. I am convinced that whenever the Torah mentions that a certain piece of land was called "the land of the Rephaim," the intention is to tell us that this piece of land was included in what G'd promised to Abraham at the time he mentioned the Rephaim. According to the words of the Sifri which I have quoted in Mattot that the lands of Sichon and Og claimed by the tribes of Reuven and Gad were not the lands which had been promised to Abraham by G'd at the time of the covenant between the pieces, it makes sense that the Torah wrote in Deut. 3.13 ההוא יקרא ארץ רפאים, "that is the land known as the land of the Rephaim." The Torah means to say: "this is what truly deserves to be called the lands of the Rephaim, and not some other lands such as the one of Sichon and Og which has popularly been known as the land of the Rephaim." Please read what else I have to say on the subject in connection with 3,13.

כאשר עשה לבני עשו, just as G’d had done for the descendants of Esau who, after settling in the land of Seir, had driven out the inhabitants (the Chori) from there.

והעוים הישבים בחצרים וגו׳ BUT THE AVIM WHO DWELL IN HAZERIM etc. —The Avim are part of the Philistine people, for they are enumerated together with them in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 13:3), as it is said, “The five lords of the Philistines, the Gazathites, and the Ashdothites, and the Eshkalonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avim”. But because of the oath which Abraham had sworn to Abimelech, king of the Philistines (Genesis 21:24), Israel would have been unable to take their land out of their possession; but, says God, I brought the Caphtorites against them and they destroyed them and dwelt in their stead, and now you are permitted to take it (that land) from their (the Caphtorites) possession (Chullin 60b).

AND THE AVIM THAT DWELT IN VILLAGES. Scripture is stating of the Avim that dwelt in villages — without a wall around them¹⁸⁰Leviticus 25:31. as far as Gaza which was the Canaanite border, as it is said, And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza¹⁸¹Genesis 10:19. — the Caphtorim that came forth out of Caphtor destroyed them and they dwelt in their stead. Now the Caphtorim were descendants of Mitzraim¹⁸²Ibid., Verses 13-14. and their land was not part of the gift given to Abraham; nevertheless their land was possessed by Israel because the Caphtorim had conquered it from the children of Canaan. The verse stating with reference to the land of the Philistines, for unto thee [Isaac], and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands¹⁸³Ibid., 26:3. was said for this reason: that the land [of the Philistines] originally belonged to the children of Canaan. Therefore, in the days of Joshua Israel drove out the five lords of the Philistines: the Gazite, the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, and the Ekronite; also the Avim,¹⁸⁴Joshua 13:3. for they all dwelled within the Canaanite border — in Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and in Ekron. They [the lords] were called by the name of their place [i.e., the Gazite, the Ashdodite etc. because, although they were foreigners, after their conquest of these five Canaanite towns, they adopted their names], for they destroyed the Avim who were of the children of Canaan¹⁸⁵Ramban will later explain that the Avim are identical with the Hivites, and of the Hivites it is clearly written that they were of the children of Canaan (Genesis 10:17). who dwelled within the border of the Canaanite from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza,¹⁸¹Genesis 10:19. and they abode in their stead. Zidon also belonged to the Philistines, as it is written, And also what are ye to Me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the regions of Philistia?¹⁸⁶Joel 4:4.
In my opinion the Avim are identical with the Hivites [who were of the children of Canaan],¹⁸⁷Genesis 10:15-17. for such is the customary way of Scripture to alter names, as we have said, so long as they indicate the same meaning, and “the serpent”¹⁸⁸Indicated by the name Chivim (the Hivites), which is of the term chivah — a snake. ye’aveit (curves) itself.¹⁸⁹This suggests the name Avim. Thus the Chivim are identical with the Avim, as both names suggest the snake and its characteristic of crawling crookedly. And in Bereshith Rabbah [we find the following text]:¹⁹⁰Bereshith Rabbah 26:17. “Said Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon: They were as expert in [tasting] earth [to determine which crops it is capable of producing] as the serpent [whose only food is the earth]. In the Galilee they call chivya (a serpent) ivya.” The Sages used to call it achna,¹⁹¹Berachoth 19. and also chachina.¹⁹²So found in Aruch Hashalem, under the term chachan that such was the reading in the Talmud. Thus it is clear that the letters a’yin and cheth are interchangeable, which explains why the name “Avim” is identical with “Chivim.” The Rabbis have interpreted:¹⁹³Vayikra Rabbah 30:3. “‘Vayei’ather’ (and He was entreated) of him, and heard his supplication.¹⁹⁴II Chronicles 33:13. Said Rabbi Levi: In Arabia they call chatirah (an opening) atirah” [and the meaning of the verse is thus: “and the Eternal made ‘an opening’ for his prayer to be accepted”].¹⁹⁵The text refers to Menasheh, king of Judah, who for a long time worshipped the idols. When the Assyrians came and carried him off to Babylon and placed him in an oven heated from below, Menasheh began calling upon idol after idol to rescue him. When no help came he turned his supplication to G-d. The attribute of mercy prevented Menasheh’s repentance from being accepted because he had lived so wicked a life, but the Holy One, blessed be He, “made an opening” in the Throne of His Glory “and received his prayer” (Sanhedrin 103a). The verse concludes, He brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Ramban uses this text to prove that the letter a’yin [in the word vayei’ather — “and He was entreated”] interchanges with the cheth [vayeichather — and He made “an opening”]. This is an additional support to Ramban’s thesis that the Avim are identical with the Chivim — the Hivites. Ramban will go on to cite several further examples of the interchangeability of the letters a’yin and cheth. — In conclusion it should be noted that the episode with Menasheh, king of Judah, illustrates the efficacy of repentance under all circumstances, for even when all the “gates” were closed to his supplication, Menasheh’s prayers were yet accepted through a special “opening” in the “Throne of the Almighty.” The Rabbis have also said:¹⁹⁶Eichah Rabbathi 2:2. “How hath the Eternal ‘ya’iv’¹⁹⁷This is generally explained as being of the word av (a cloud): How hath the Eternal ‘covered with a cloud’ … The Midrash will explain it as though it were written with a cheth, as Ramban continues. the daughter of Zion in His anger!¹⁹⁸Lamentations 2:2. Rabbi Chama the son of Rabbi Chanina explained it as follows: how has the Eternal chiyeiv (assigned guilt) in His anger! There are places where they call chiva (guilt) iva.” Chavkim (rungs) are called avkim.¹⁹⁹Vayikra Rabbah, 9:1: “The prince of the kingdom of Babylon ascended seventy avkim (rungs).” See also Vol. I, p. 350. Such [interchangeability of the letters a’yin and cheth] is common in the language. Of Rabbi “Chiya” [the Rabbis say],²⁰⁰In this exact form I have not found the source for the statement. However, in Moed Katan 16b, and in Kerithoth 8a we do find Rabbi Chiya being referred to as “Iya.” “And what does ‘Iya’ say of this matter?” Our Rabbis were also accustomed to speak of heisei’ach hada’ath (distractedness or absent-mindedness) instead of hisa hada’ath [changing the a’yin of hisa to cheth of heisei’ach]. In the Jerusalem Talmud, they always [use the term] hisiya [to signify “distractedness”].²⁰¹See my Hebrew commentary p. 354, Note 2, for a number of such references. And in the Mishnah we also find:²⁰²Tahoroth 7:8. “[If someone was clean] v’heisia (and had given up the thought of) eating.” Commentators have also said of the verse ‘ushu’ and come all ye nations²⁰³Joel 4:11. The commentators referred to, are Menachem ben Saruk and Rashi. that it is like chushu (hasten ye). And in the Mechilta we find:²⁰⁴Mechilta, Pis’cha 7. “Ufasachti,²⁰⁵Exodus 12:3. Rabbi Yashiya says: Do not read ufasachti (and I will protect), but read ufusati (and I will step over), meaning that G-d, blessed be He, will ‘pass over’ the houses of the children of Israel.” He [Rabbi Yashiya] made ufasachti refer to the word p’sioth (steps) by interchanging the cheth with an a’yin.
Scripture now finished informing us about the entire land of the Hivites that was lost [to them]. Part of it was taken by [the children of] Esau²⁰⁶Verse 22. and that is forbidden to us, and part of it was taken by the Caphtorim and we may take it from them.
And in Bereshith Rabbah²⁰⁷Bereshith Rabbah 26:16. I have found that the Avim are identical with Rephaim [and not with the Hivites as we have stated hitherto]. Thus the Rabbis comment on the verse, The Nephilim were in the earth:²⁰⁸Genesis 6:4. “The Rephaim are the Avim. They were called Rephaim [of the root raphoh — weak] because the heart of anyone who beheld them became weak as wax. They were called Avim [of the term ivya — serpent] because they were as expert as a serpent [whose food is the earth] in [tasting] earth [to determine which crops it is capable of producing].” The Rabbis further said there with reference to G-d’s gift to Abraham:²⁰⁹Bereshith Rabbah 44:27. “Rabbi Dostoie in the name of Rabbi Shmuel said: Because He does not mention here [among the lands of the ten nations given to Abraham] the Hivite, therefore, He introduced the Rephaim in their place.” Now when I pondered this text, I found the matter to be true and authentic, correct and affirmed. For Moses our teacher mentioned to them the seven nations [whose lands] Israel inherited, as he said, and He shalt cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou.²¹⁰Further, 7:1. Now six of these are mentioned in the gift given to Abraham,²¹¹Genesis 15:20-21. but the Hivite is not mentioned there! Then he [the Hivite] must in any case be either the Rephaim²¹²Genesis 15:20. or of the Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite²¹³Ibid., Verse 19. [all of whom are mentioned in the gift to Abraham]. All our Rabbis say²⁰⁹Bereshith Rabbah 44:27. that Israel did not inherit [the lands of] the Kenite, Kenizzite and Kadmonite, but that He will make them inherit [those lands] in the future, and about them it is said, And when the Eternal thy G-d enlarge thy boundary, as He hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which He promised to give unto thy fathers.²¹⁴Further, 19:8. And so also it is not mentioned anywhere that they inherited them in the days of Joshua. If so, the Rephaim given by Him to Abraham must be the Hivite, who was the sixth son of Canaan,¹⁸⁷Genesis 10:15-17. and who was called Hivi by his father; while in the days of Abraham they surnamed him Rephaim. In my opinion the name Rephaim is derived from that of the Chivi [Hivite — which as explained above denotes “a serpent”], related to the expression on the lair of the asp and on the viper’s den,²¹⁵Isaiah 11:8. for things that are hidden in the earth [like the serpent], the [Hebrew] language calls ‘rephaim’, for example: ‘ha’rephaim’ (the dead) tremble beneath the waters and the inhabitants thereof;²¹⁶Job 26:5. and the earth shall bring to life ‘rephaim’ (the dead).²¹⁷Isaiah 26:19.
Now the children of this Hivite were very numerous and, when the families of the Canaanite spread abroad,²¹⁸Genesis 10:18. this family took possession of large territories, some of them called “the land of Rephaim;” others, [“the land of] Horites;” and some, [“the land of] Avim;” and generally they were all Hivites, and they were all Rephaim, just as, among our people [there are] Ephraim, Judah, Israel — but generally speaking, all are [called] Israel. Now, these names [Rephaim, Horites, Avim] are all descriptives derived from the name Chivi [Hivite — which denotes “a serpent”] since his name was Chivi they surnamed him Rephaim from chivya (a serpent) because the serpent dwells in the holes of the earth [and things that lie hidden in the earth are called “Rephaim,” as explained above]. They were likewise called “the Horite” and “the Avim” because of their association with the term serpent, as I have explained above.²¹⁹Ramban refers to his explanation above that the letters cheth and a’yin interchange. Now since chivya is a snake, the word “Avim” likewise denotes the same. Ramban did not explain the name Chorim (Horites) above; but it is obvious that his intent is that the name is derived from the word chur (a hole), since the serpent dwells in a lair in the ground. Now the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Abraham [the land of] the Rephaim in general,¹⁷⁰Genesis 15:20. and Moses mentioned to Israel “the Hivite”²¹⁰Further, 7:1. which was the first name by which his father [Canaan] called him,¹⁸⁷Genesis 10:15-17. for the land of Rephaim was already divided in the days of Moses and parts of it [i.e., that belonging to Moab, Ammon, and the children of Esau] were forbidden to Israel. Thus Scripture comes here to mention the subject of the entire land of the Hivites, who are Rephaim, and all that was done with it. First it states²²⁰Above, Verses 10-11. that the Emim were also of the Rephaim and the Moabites succeeded them. Then it states²²¹Verse 12. that the children of Esau succeeded the Horites, who were also of the Rephaim. And then it repeats²²²Verses 20-21. that the land of Ammon was also the land of Rephaim, and all this was forbidden to Israel. He also narrated²²³Verse 23. that the Caphtorim who came from Caphtor took part of their land [i.e., of the Avim who are also Rephaim] and that [on account of the Caphtorim’s prior conquest] it was permissible for Israel. Thus Joshua mentioned [to the children of Joseph] the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim²²⁴Joshua 17:15. [wherein they were to settle].
However, Rashi wrote:²²⁵On Verse 23 before us. “The Avim were of the Philistine people,²²⁶The Philistines were descendants of Mitzraim (Genesis 10:14). Thus, while according to Ramban, as explained above, the Avim who are identical with the Hivites and Rephaim were descendants of Canaan whose land was permissible to Israel, Rashi holds the Avim to have been part of the Philistines who were descendants of Mitzraim. Now, both Mitzraim and Canaan were sons of Ham (ibid., Verse 6). But only the land of the children of Canaan was given to Abraham. How Rashi’s opinion affects the subject under consideration will be made clear in the text which follows. for they are enumerated together with them in the Book of Joshua: [the five lords of the Philistines:] the Gazite, and the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, and the Ekronite, also the Avim.¹⁸⁴Joshua 13:3. But, because of the oath that Abraham had sworn to Abimelech,²²⁷Ibid., 21:24. Israel could not go into their land to remove them from their territory. Therefore, I brought upon them the Caphtorim and they destroyed them [i.e., the Avim who were Philistines] and they dwelled in their stead; now you are permitted to take it from them [i.e., the Caphtorim].” But the intent of Rashi’s words are not clear to me. For Scripture [in the verse from Joshua quoted above]¹⁸⁴Joshua 13:3. does not enumerate the Avim among the Philistines; instead it refers to the five lords of the Philistines¹⁸⁴Joshua 13:3. and lists them — and then mentions the Avim as a separate people. The verse states that from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward¹⁸⁴Joshua 13:3. — all this is accounted the land of Canaan; [the lands of] the five lords of the Philistines that it lists, with the Avim who are another people. But according to the Rabbi [Rashi] the land of the Avim became permissible to Israel because the Caphtorim had taken it from them, but who made permissible [the lands of] the other lords of the Philistines?²²⁸But according to Ramban, as explained at the beginning of this verse, the Philistines had taken their land from the children of Canaan, all of whose lands were given to Abraham. Since the Avim [identical with the Hivite who is mentioned in Genesis 10:17 as a son of Canaan] were one of the ten children of Canaan, it is self-understood that their land was permissible to Israel. Verse 23 here, telling that the Caphtorim [who were of the children of Mitzraim, like the Philistines — Genesis 10:14] destroyed the Avim, serves the purpose of informing Israel that they should not be misled into thinking that the land is forbidden to them because the Caphtorim were not descended from Canaan. Therefore, the verse informs us that the Caphtorim had taken it from the Avim who are Canaanites and, consequently, their land is permissible to Israel. The same was true of the five lords of the Philistines who had taken the land away from the Canaanites; hence Joshua was permitted to take it from them. All this explains Ramban’s interpretation. Rashi, however, wrote that the Avim were part of the Philistine people, and Verse 23 before us informs us that their land was made permissible to Israel because the Caphtorim had taken it from them. On this Ramban asks: if so, what made the lands of the five lords of the Philistines permissible to Israel? There are other questions as well, which Ramban raises on Rashi’s interpretation. And why did the Israelites conquer all of them, for Joshua was the one who suppressed the Philistines and the Avim! Moreover, [according to Rashi] why should the land of the Philistines belong to Abraham altogether and why did Abimelech find it necessary to make his covenant [with Abraham]²²⁷Ibid., 21:24. in this matter, when the Philistines are of the children of Mitzraim,²²⁹Genesis 10:13-14. and so were the Caphtorim,²²⁹Genesis 10:13-14. and they were not of the ten nations [given to Abraham]?²³⁰Ibid., 15:19-21. — The question on Rashi is thus made all the stronger: If the Avim and the Caphtorim were Philistines, why should the land of the Avim have become permissible to Israel as a result of its conquest by the Caphtorim? Whichever of the two held the land, it was a Philistine possession and Philistia was not permissible to Israel. But the [fact of the] matter is the opposite! For the Caphtorim and the Philistines [children of Mitzraim] destroyed the Canaanites, as indicated by the fact that Abimelech [a Philistine, not a Canaanite] was the king of Gerar, [indicating that the Canaanites had been driven out],²³¹Ibid., 20:2. and the Gazite dwelled in Gaza, and Zidon was a Philistine city. All these were part of the Canaanite territories, as it is said, And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza.²³²Ibid., 10:19.
Now it appears to me that the Philistines and Caphtorim [children of Mitzraim] were considered one people, and so Scripture states, For the Eternal will spoil the Philistines, the remnant of the isle of Caphtor.²³³Jeremiah 47:4. And this is the sense of the expression [in the verse before us], the Caphtorim that came forth out of Caphtor. It was out of Caphtor that a small [band of] people came forth to sojourn where they could find a place.²³⁴Judges 17:8. They destroyed the Avim who were of the seed of Canaan that dwelled as far as Gaza, and the Caphtorim dwelled in their stead in Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron — all these places being within the borders of the land of Canaan and they divided it among their five lords. The name of these districts was Philistia and they were called Philistines. The Avim were left with the remainder of their land as Joshua mentioned.²³⁵This refers to Joshua 13:3 [quoted above] where, after mentioning the five lords of the Philistines, he cites ‘also the Avim.’ According to Ramban this indicates that the Philistines [who are identical with the Caphtorim, as explained] took but part of the land of the Avim [as stated in Verse 23 before us] while the Avim were still left with part of their land. Now, since the Avim are identical with the Hivites who were of the children of Canaan, Joshua was permitted to take the entire original land of the Avim — what had been conquered by the five lords of the Philistines, as well as what was still in the hands of the Avim. It is this which is meant by the verse the Philistines, the remnant of the isle of Caphtor,²³³Jeremiah 47:4. for the Caphtorim were Philistines. This is also the meaning of the expression, whence went forth the Philistines and the Caphtorim,²³⁶Genesis 10:14. as I have explained there.²³⁷Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 149-150. As to what Scripture states, Have I not brought up Israel out of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?²³⁸Amos 9:7. — [which would seem to indicate that the Philistines were a separate nation that was redeemed from Caphtor just as Israel was a separate nation that was redeemed from Egypt — thus contradicting Ramban’s thesis that the Philistines and the Caphtorim were one nation — the explanation is as follows:] The verse there is speaking of the wars of the Eternal. It was He Who brought up Israel from the land of Egypt by signs, and by wonders, and by war,²³⁹Further, 4:34. and He brought up the Philistines from Caphtor, their land, because He brought them forth from there, to deliver unto them the Avim through a great miracle and they destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead [as stated in Verse 23 before us] and they left the land of Caphtor to their brothers.²⁴⁰Thus it is again established that the Caphtorim are identical with the Philistines, as they were one people. Or the matter may have been as I have mentioned, that the Avim, the children of Canaan who first dwelled in the land, were known as Philistines because the name of the land was Philistia. When the Caphtorim that came forth out of Caphtor subdued them, they exiled some of them to their land Caphtor which was part of the land of Egypt, settling them among their brothers [the Caphtorim]. G-d redeemed them [i.e., the Avim who were known as Philistines] from there and they returned to their original place [in the land of Canaan]. We know not in which generation this happened. Thus the Philistines were inhabitants of the land of Canaan, and, therefore, Scripture states, The word of the Eternal is against you, O Canaan, the land of the Philistines; I will even destroy thee, that there shall be no inhabitant.²⁴¹Zephaniah 2:5. And so Israel did not drive out the Philistines until the time of the oath had expired, when three generations²⁴²The oath was specifically limited to three generations: Now therefore swear unto me here by G-d that thou [Abraham] wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son (Genesis 21:23). of Philistines in that land of Abimelech had died. And so the Rabbis have said in the Midrash:²⁴³Tanchuma, Beshalach 1. “For that was ‘near,’²⁴⁴Exodus 13:17. [meaning] the oath which Abraham had sworn to Abimelech was yet ‘near’ [i.e., was still in effect, because] his grandson was still living” [and therefore G-d did not lead the people through Philistia after the exodus from Egypt]. This is a fitting and correct interpretation of this subject.
However, in the Gemara [of Tractate Chullin] in the Chapter V’eilu Treifoth²⁴⁵“These are accounted treifah” among cattle. It is the third chapter of Tractate Chullin. The text quoted is on 60b. the Rabbis have cited an opinion in a dispute agreeing with the words of Rashi [that the Avim were Philistines]. Rav²⁴⁶Rav, the leading teacher in the first generation of Amoraim in Babylon, laid the foundation for the great Yeshivoth in Babylon. He was a pupil of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, also called Rabbeinu Hakadosh, the redactor of the Mishnah in Eretz Yisrael. Rav returned to his native Babylon where he founded the Academy of Sura which existed for about eight hundred years without interruption. His real name was Abba, but because of the great respect accorded to him he was called “Rav,” as Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi was called simply “Rabbi.” said there that the Avim came from Teman, and we learned a Beraitha²⁴⁷See Vol. II, p. 133, Note 209. that concurs with him. Teman is of the seed of Edom, as it is written, Of Edom, thus said the Eternal of hosts: Is wisdom no more in Teman?²⁴⁸Jeremiah 49:7. This is possible, and, [if so] Scripture is stating of the Avim, who are of the children of Esau, [that] part of their land was made permissible [to Israel] through the Caphtorim [who took it from the Avim], just as [parts of the lands of] Ammon and Moab were made permissible by Sihon [conquering them]. And what I have written is good and upright.

והעוים היושבים בחצרים עד עזה, even though the latter belonged to the descendants of Esau or the Philistines with whom Avraham had made a solemn non aggression pact, the Israelites were not now denied the right to conquer these lands. The reason they could do so now was that the Philistines no longer owned the land in question כפתורים היוצאימ מכפתור, the Cretans emigrating from Crete because their island could not contain them all and who were seeking “lebensraum,” had annihilated the Avim and replaced them in that land. When the Israelites conquered the land in which Avimelech used to be king, it already had been lost by Avimelech. [Perhaps the reason that this coastal strip was still known as “the land of the Philistines,” long after the Israelites drove out the Canaanites, is the same as when the Torah referred to the land of the descendants of Ammon as “the land of the Refaim,” (verse 20) the latter having been its original owners.” Ed.]

והעוים היושבים בחצרים עד עשזה, “as well as the Avites who dwelled as far south as Gaza.” Nachmanides explains that all these details are provided by Moses to show that although the Caphtorim are not part of the 7 Canaanite nations G’d promised the descendants of Avraham, seeing that they had settled in the coastal plain only after having expelled the Avites, a Canaanite tribe, when the Israelites later on occupied those lands this was quite legal. Further more, in Genesis 26,3 G’d confirmed the fact that the land of the Philistines was included in the Holy Land, as Yitzchok was in the land of the Philistines at the time when G’d promised him ”these lands.” Name changes by people who had supplanted others were historically quite frequent, and Bereshit Rabbah 26,7 mentions in particular that the Chivi, as we mentioned a name analogous to נחש, snake, was so- called as these people were experts in what roots were safe to eat and which not, something extremely important to snakes which had been condemned by G’d to eat עפר, things growing directly in the earth. Moreover, in certain parts of the galil the word עוי was used interchangeably with chivi. Moses concludes by informing us that at that time all these lands were occupied by the Chivi, part of which used to belong to the descendants of Esau. Bereshit Rabbah identifies the Avim with the Refa-im, speaking also about the gift promised by G’d to Avraham, seeing that no mention is made by Moses here of the Chivi, it is logical that the Refa-im replace that tribe in Moses’ recital here. This also seems to be born out when Moses in Deut. 7,1 speaks of seven nations G’d will fling out of the land and replace them with the Israelites, and six of the seven are identical with the names mentioned by G’d when He promised the land to the Israelites, the seventh, the Chivi, not having been included in the list in Genesis 15,19-21 where the Refa-im, apparently is meant to be identical with the Chivi. If not that, the “Chivi” might be either one of the three other tribes mentioned in that promise and none of the others, i.e. the Keyni, K’nizi, or Kadmoni. Our sages claim that Israel never inherited the lands of the three last mentioned tribes, and that this will be fulfilled only after the coming of the Messiah. If that is factual, there can be no question but that the “Chivi” is identical with the Refa-im in the promise to Avraham in chapter 15 of Genesis. The latter (Chivi) was the 6th of the sons of Canaan. (Genesis 10,17) His father had called him “Chivi.” However in the days of Avraham, over 200 years later, his descendants were known as Refa-im. Personally, I feel that Chivi was a nickname, based on his familiarity with the various plants and their roots, as I mentioned earlier. The word רפאים is also used in Scripture as describing things buried underground, as we know from Job 26,5 הרפאים יחוללו מתחת מים ושוכניהם, “are dead things formed beneath the water and the inhabitants thereof?” Or, Isaiah 26,19 וארץ רפאים תפיל, “you make the land cast out the dead.” The children of the Chivi increased drastically, and when the Canaanites eventually took possession of the land now known as the land of Canaan, the family of the Chivi grabbed a major share of that land. All these names describe in one way or another the sixth son of Canaan, Chivi. Since at the time of Avraham the tribe was known as Refa-im, G’d referred to that tribe by the name known to Avraham. Moses, here, refers to it by its original name. Some of these lands had been known as the land of the Chorim, etc. At any rate, at the time of Moses the lands formerly belonging to the Refa-im had already been parceled out to other tribes/nations and their names had been changed. Seeing that some of the lands promised to Avraham were not included in the lands that Israel was about to invade and conquer, Moses had to identify which lands were still forbidden to the Israelites to invade. Hence we have the references to the Eymim, the Bney Ammon, etc. On the other hand, lands that on the face of it had no connection to the Canaanites, such as the regions occupied by the Philistines, or the Caphtorim, were mentioned in order that we know that the people dwelling in them had themselves been interlopers. Let us now turn to Rashi’s explanation that the Avim were descendants of the Philistines, seeing that they are lumped together in the Book of Joshua, 13,3 and that the Israelites at this time were unable to dispossess them on account of the oath given by Avraham to Avimelech in Genesis 21,23 (which spanned 4 generations) Seeing that the Philistines there had been replaced by the Caphtorim, Avraham’s oath no longer applied. Nachmanides challenges this interpretation by Rashi, claiming that the Avim have not been included under the heading of the Philistines, as in the quotation from Joshua the five leaders of the Philistines are mentioned first, without any mention of the Avim; only subsequently are the Avim listed as a separate nation. [Presumably, Nachmanides’ argument is based on the fact that the verse begins mentioning that there were only 5 such leaders of the Philistines, so that anyone mentioned after those five have been named is not included. Ed.] Furthermore, assuming that the land of the Avim had become permitted to the Israelites because they were not the original inhabitants there but had been replaced already by a previous invading force by the Caphtorim, who permitted the lands of the Philistines? [We know they had been there at the time of Avraham and at the time of Moses. Ed.] What reason was there that the lands of the Philistines should ever become part of the land of Israel so that Avimelech had felt threatened and asked Avraham for a non-aggression pact covering the next four generations? After all, the Philistines did not belong to the seven Canaanite tribes whose land G’d had promised to Avraham? The Philistines are after all descended from Mitzrayim, the second son of Cham, not of Canaan his fourth son! In light of all the above the true historical facts are that the Philistines as well as the Caphtorim had invaded and captured some of the lands previously occupied by the Canaanites, else how come Avimelech was King in Gerar, a territory at one time belonging to the Canaanites? The Philistines as well as the Caphtorim expanded southwards in the coastal plain and conquered Gaza, Ashkelon, Gat and Ekron from the Cananites. This made it legal for the Israelites to occupy lands that had been illegally acquired by its residents. Those lands, according to G’d’s promise to Avraham, had been intended as their ancestral heritage. As it happened, the Israelites did not actually conquer that coastal plain until long after the time frame provided for in Avraham’s oath to Avimelech had expired. Three generations of Philistines had already died before Joshua began his conquest of the land of Canaan.

That Avrohom swore to Avimelech, etc. Rashi is answering the question: How does, “Arise to travel and cross, etc.” relate to the previous verse? [For Scripture implies:] Since the Caftorim destroyed the Avim and settled in their stead, this is the reason to arise to travel! Rashi answers: “Because of the oath, etc.”

והעוים היושבים בחצרים עד עזה, “and the Avvim who dwelled in villages as far south as Gaza.’ Moses now elaborates where the Chivvi is located. The letters ח and ע are used interchangeably. Do you want to know where to find the Chivvim? They dwell in chatzerim, They were so powerful that they did not bother to live in cities surrounded by a security wall, as they relied on their physical prowess to protect them. The land called: eretz refa-im, was identical with the kingdom of the giant Og, (3,13) it had been promised to Avram and by now the time had come to inherit it and to settle there. However, the land of Moav which the latter had taken away from Eymim, who were giants like the Refaim, are not identical with the Refa-im that G–d promised to Avram, seeing that Moabites called them by a different name,; also the land now occupied by the Ammonites who had dispossessed the Zamzumim and were not the same Refaim as the ones who had lived there hundreds of years earlier.

כפתורים היוצאים מכפתור השמידם וישבו תחתם. Knowing history you will know that G’d will give you the land that He has sworn to your ancestors.

BEHOLD, I HAVE GIVEN INTO THY HAND SIHON. This statement is the same as the one stated below, Behold, I have begun to deliver up Sihon.²⁴⁹Further, Verse 31. Before that, Moses sent to him [Sihon] messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth,²⁵⁰Verse 26. Ramban is thus stating that Verses 26-29 [recording Moses’ proposal for a peaceful passage through Sihon’s land] actually took place before G-d’s command to him to begin the battle against Sihon as stated in Verse 24. but after G-d had commanded him, [Moses, in Verse 24 before us,] begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle he would no longer send him words of peace, saying: ‘Let me pass through thy land.’²⁵¹Verses 26-27. For if Sihon were to hearken to him, Moses would have been transgressing the words of G-d [by not waging war against Sihon as he had been commanded in Verse 24], and if Moses knew in advance that Sihon would not hearken, his message would have been pointless. [Therefore, we must say that Moses’ message to Sihon, as stated in Verses 26-29, was sent before G-d’s command here in Verse 24.] Now, do not think of saying [that Moses’ message of peace] is in accordance with the commandment wherein we have been charged, When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it²⁵²Further, 20:10. [and, therefore, you might think that even after G-d told Moses to begin to possess Sihon’s land he was still obligated to send the message of peace, here recorded in Verses 26-29 — that is not the case]. For [in the injunction to call for peace] it is written, And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve you.²⁵³Ibid., Verse 11. Here, however, if Sihon had hearkened to them, they would not have touched him at all. But the meaning of the expression, and I sent messengers,²⁵⁰Verse 26. Ramban is thus stating that Verses 26-29 [recording Moses’ proposal for a peaceful passage through Sihon’s land] actually took place before G-d’s command to him to begin the battle against Sihon as stated in Verse 24. is that “I had already sent messengers.” Moses, however, introduced the words of G-d [to begin contending with Sihon in battle with the fact that he sent a message of peace] in order to explain for the Eternal thy G-d hardened his spirit²⁵⁴Verse 30. [a hardening of the spirit that took place following Moses’ earlier message when Sihon could have seized the opportunity to make peace], meaning to say that it was all caused by G-d, for so He told me.

והתגר בו, as if the Torah had written והתגרה,”provoke it.”

ראה נתתי בידך את סיחון, “See! I have delivered in your hand Sichon, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this address by Moses is a quote from Moses’ address to the people commencing in verse 31. Here we are merely told that prior to the campaign Moses did send out spies to ascertain the militarily best way of provoking the confrontation. Once G’d mentioned the fact that in this instance Israel was to provoke war, Moses did not send any more spies, etc. The reason was that in the event that Sichon would have proved to be in a conciliatory mood, Moses would have violated G’d’s command to provoke war with Sichon. On the other hand, if Moses knew that the messengers dispatched to ask for permission to traverse the land would be rejected out of hand, why did he bother? We cannot answer that Moses sent these messengers from his own initiative in order to comply with the rule that prior to a war of expansion the opposing side must be given a chance to surrender peacefully, as per Deut. That command certainly did not refer to the 7 Canaanite nations of whom he had been told not to allow a single soul to survive! Moreover, normally, the people of cities captured in a war of expansion, authorised by G’d- would become prisoners of war, slaves, etc, whereas if Sichon had agreed, none of his land would have been touched at all? We must therefore translate the line ואשלח מלאכים in verse 26 as being in the past tense. He introduced the whole story by explaining that G’d’s hand had been involved from the first moment, and that Sichon’s refusal had been engineered by G’d so as to set in motion the scenario that would lead to his destruction, and his people would know that their king himself had been to blame.

החל רש, “commence to take possession;” רש is derived from ירושה, meaning 'inheritance'. According to Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 6,1 the word החל is derived from חולין, “profane, not sacred.” G’d told Moses that as far as the Israelites were concerned, He had made the land of the Emorites no longer “sacred” i.e. out of bounds to the Jewish people. It was permitted to conquer that land seeing that it belonged to an idolater, Sichon. [I suppose this means “as opposed to the Moabites who had owned most of it at one time and whose territory G’d had declared out of bounds to the Israelites.” Ed.].

תחת כל השמים [THIS DAY I BEGIN TO PUT THE DREAD OF THEE … UPON THE NATIONS THAT ARE] UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN — This (the statement that the nations under the entire heaven will dread the Israelites) teaches that the sun stood still for Moses on the day of the battle with Og, and the matter was consequently known under the whole heaven (Avodah Zarah 25a).

THIS DAY WILL I BEGIN TO PUT THE DREAD OF THEE. This refers to Israel, meaning that all the peoples should fear them, and that the men of Canaan should go out [in battle] against them with melted hearts. G-d hardened their spirits, however, and they said, “Our death through their sword is preferable to being slaves to them.” For what sense is there to say of Moses, This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the peoples that are under the whole heaven, [meaning that the nations would fear Moses personally] when Moses would fight only with these two kings [Sihon and Og]? Rather, this is a promise to Israel and Joshua, as he said to Joshua, Thine eyes have seen.²⁵⁵Further, 3:21. This then is the purport of the expression ‘Begin’ to possess his land²⁵⁶Verse 31. [meaning that Moses was to make the beginning of the conquest — but the task is to be finished by Joshua and Israel].

היום הזה אחל תת פחדך ויראתך על כל העמים, “From this day on I shall begin to place the fear and dread of you upon all the nations, etc.” Nachmanides understands these words as G’d making the nations of the earth afraid of the people of Israel so that when the Canaanites would come out to fight them they would do so with no confidence in themselves. If these words had been words of reassurance to Moses, what was the point, seeing that he would participate only in the two campaigns against Sichon and Og? Clearly G’d’s assurance is aimed at Joshua and the Jewish people as a whole.

This teaches that the sun stood still, etc. For it is written here, “I begin to place,” and it says regarding Yehoshua (Yehoshua 10:12), “On the day that Adonoy placed, etc.” Just as the sun stood still over there, so too here, the sun stood still.

V. 25. ורגזו (siehe Bereschit S. 189). וחלו (siehe zu Schmot 15, 14).

היום הזה אחל תת פחדך, “this day I will begin to give the dread of you, etc;” prior to this, when the seven Canaanite nations noted that the Israelites, instead of invading the land of the Edomites or Moabites detoured around their countries, they reasoned that if the Israelites were afraid to face these nations individually, they would be even more afraid to face a combination of Canaanite nations. When they observed that the Israelites had vanquished both Sichon and Og in short order, they had to revise their attitude and began to tremble at the thought of facing them. This is what G-d meant when he told Moses that as of that day the Canaanites dreaded the military might of the Israelites.

ממדבר קדמות [AND I SENT MESSENGERS] FROM THE WILDERNESS OF KEDEMOTH — Although the Omnipresent had not commanded me to proclaim peace unto Sihon I learnt to do so from what happened in the wilderness of Sinai, i.e. from an incident that relates to the Torah which pre-existed (קדמה) the world. For when the Holy One, blessed be He, was about to give it (the Torah) to Israel, he took it round to Esau and Ishmael. It was manifest before Him that they would not accept it, but yet He opened unto them with peace. Similarly I first approached Sihon with words of peace. — Another explanation of ממדבר קדמות: Moses said to God, "I learnt this from what Thou didst say in the wilderness — from Thee Who wast in existence before (קדמת) the world. Thou couldst have sent one flash of lightning to bum up the Egyptians, but Thou didst send me from the wilderness to Pharaoh, to say gently, (Exodus 5:1) "Let my people go” (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 764:27).

Even though the Almighty did not command me, etc. Otherwise, what is the significance of קדמות (precedence)? Rashi comments: “Even though the Almighty did not command me, etc.” This implies that he holds that the verse, “When you near a city [to do battle against it] you are to offer it peace (below 20:10),” refers to an optional war.

ממדבר קדמות, “from the wilderness of K’demot.” This means that the region in question had been a barren desert before G–d had decided to produce water from the rock Moses had struck. Seeing that most of the territory ruled over by Sichon during Moses’ time used to belong previously to either Moav or Ammon, both nations whose territory was out of bounds for the Israelites, they offered to traverse it peacefully. The territory ruled over by Og, which previously was occupied by the Refaim, was not the subject of such an offer by the Israelites. No peace offering under any conditions other than the population relocating themselves was extended to any of the seven Canaanite tribes. They were also not eligible for conversion to Judaism. A different interpretation of the words: ממדבר קדמות. G–d had explained to Moses that legally speaking, instead of sending Moses and Aaron to warn Pharaoh to release His people, He was entitled on the basis of their record to kill the Egyptians without any warning at all. Nonetheless, He went out of His way to offer them a chance to rehabilitate themselves. (Exodus 8,15) The same was true at Mount Sinai, prior to G–d revealing Himself to the Israelites and giving them His Torah. He knew full well that the Ishmaelites or Edomites when offered the Torah would reject it out of hand; nevertheless, He went through the motions of offering it to them. (Compare Deuteronomy 33,2) Here too, Moses emulated what he had learned from G–d and dispatched messengers to ask for permission to traverse the land of Sichon, offering economic benefits to him such as offering to pay for water, although the Israelites had their own supply of water. According to our sages, Moses actually sent two letters to him. In one letter he offered peaceful relations. In the second letter he warned him that if that offer were to be turned down the Israelites would declare war upon him and his nation. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Moses did not waste two letters on Sichon, but in the first section of his letter he offered peaceful relations, whereas in the second half he spelled out that the alternative would be war. He based himself on Psalms 120,7: אני שלום וכי אדבר המה למלחמה, “when I offer peace, they are nonetheless bent on war.” Considering this, G–d told the Israelites that because these people were bent upon war against you I will let you inherit their land in peace, as we know from Psalms 37,11: וענוים יירשו ארץ והתענגו על רוב שלום, “but the lowly shall inherit the land and delight in abundant well-being”.

ממדבר קדמות, “from the desert of Kedemot.” The name of that desert is related to the well known expression קדמה מזרחה, “forward in an easterly direction.” In other words, the desert took its name from the fact that it was situated in the east, as opposed to the south, where most of the deserts in the region were located. Compare Judges 11,22: ויירשו את כל גבול האמורי מארנון עד היבוק ומן המדבר עד הירדן, “and they appropriated (as an inheritance) all the territory of the Ammonites from the Arnon river to the Yabbok river and from the wilderness to the Jordan.”

Another explanation of “From the wilderness of Kedeimos”: From You I learned, etc. According to the first explanation there is a difficulty: Why does it is written קדמות (precedence)? There are many things that preceded the creation of the world. The verse should have been more specific. Therefore, Rashi says: “Another explanation, etc.” Yet according to the second explanation there is also a difficulty: Why does it say ממדבר (from the wilderness). It fits well if “wilderness” is referring to the Torah, for it was given in the wilderness. But if it is referring to the Almighty, then why does it say “wilderness”? Therefore, both explanations are necessary.

דברי שלום, “with words of peace;” seeing that most of the territory possessed by Sichon had been conquered from the Moabites and the Ammonites, and not from the Canaanites, they were sincere in their offer of traversing these lands in apeaceful manner. Offering peace to the seven Canaanite nations is forbidden as we know from Deut. 20,16.

V. 27. בדרך בדרך: nur auf dem jedem zustehenden öffentlichen Wege. Dasselbe, was Bamidbar Kap. 21, 22 דרך המלך heißt.

אכל בכסף תשברני, “sell me food in exchange for money!” The meaning is “in the event that I need to buy supplies.” Similarly, מים בכסף תתן לי ושתיתי, רק אעברה ברגלי, “water in exchange for money give me so that I may drink it,; only let me pass through on foot.” Moses referred to the armies marching though Sichon’s territory. From this verse you can deduce that when the prophet Zecharyah had depicted G’d as standing on the Mount of Olives (Zecharyah 14,4) this was a reference to the heavenly hosts and soldiers. (The author discussed this in detail on Genesis 6,6).

כאשר עשו לי בגי עשו AS THE CHILDREN OF ESAU DID TO ME — This does not refer to passing through their land (רק אעברה ברגלי) for Edom refused this, (cf. Numbers 20:18) but to the matter of selling food and water (also mentioned in the preceding verse).

והמואבים היושבים בער, these were not the other Moabites, of whom the Torah had written that they failed to welcome you with bread and water. (Deut. 23,5) The same is true of different sections of the descendants of Esau as I explained on verse 4. The Israelites detoured around the militant Edomites as reported in 2,1. It took a long time to make this detour.

כאשר עשו לי בני עשו, “as the descendants of Esau have done to me.” According to Rashi the subject is the food and drink that the Israelites were interested in buying while traversing the land of Sichon. The reference could not have been to the crux of the matter, the permission to traverse the land, as the descendants of Esau were known to have refused this, so how could Moses have misrepresented the facts? Ibn Ezra has a problem with such an interpretation, as we would be faced with the Israelites contradicting themselves when the Torah cites as a reason that the Moabites could never be accepted as converts the fact that they refused to offer food and water to the Israelites? (Deut. 23,5) He therefore understands the words כאשר עשו לי בני עשו, as referring to the fact that the Israelites had made a detour around the land of Edom not because the Edomites objected to their traversing the land in an orderly fashion, בדרך, בדרך, but because their king had objected. Moses asks to be given the same privileges as the בני עשו as opposed to the מלך אדום had been prepared to grant them. Only the king had been afraid that the Israelites instead of staying on a rural pass would march into a city. Many other commentators do not see a contradiction in what is written in Deut 23,5 with what is written here. There is a difference between volunteering to a thirsty nation some water and selling water to a nation that clearly has managed for 40 years without such “favours” from any other nation. G’d’s objection to the Moabites’ behaviour was based on their lack of humanity in denying much needed water to a nation that owed its entire existence to that nation’s founder Avraham having once rescued him from captivity and the second time from being included in the people who lost their lives in Sodom by praying on behalf of the “righteous“ inhabitants of Sodom. Some commentators feel that the line in Deut. 23,5 refers to the Ammonites, not to the Moabites. The Moabites had hired the services of Bileam to curse the Israelites, an act of extreme ingratitude that is quite enough to disqualify them from membership in the Jewish nation, and to enjoy the direct protection of the כנפי השכינה, the protectively outstretched wings of the Divine Presence. According to that view, at the time, the Moabites had offered bread and water.

כאשר עשו לי בני עשו, “as the children of Esau have done for me.” It is quite impossible to understand these words to mean that the Edomites had provided the Israelites with bread and water seeing that Moses includes the Moabites in his statement and we know for a fact that the Moabites had done no such thing. After all, one of the reasons that a Moabite may not become a proselyte is precisely because that nation had not offered bread and water to the passing Israelites when they were in need of it (Deut. 23,5). The words must refer to the request to be allowed to march through their lands without causing any damage. Verse 4 in our chapter means that the Edomites were quite amenable to the Israelites traversing the mountain of Seir at the border of their country. The king of Edom only refused the Israelites to travel through the built up area of his country, the fastest route to the land of Canaan. This is why he had said לא תעבור בי (Numbers 20,18) i.e. “not through my capital.” Neither he nor his people had any objection to the territory of their land being used as a passage for the Israelites. I explained it there.

This does not refer to [our] passing through their land, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse writes, “Food for money sell me... just let me cross on foot. As the descendants of Eisov did for me.” This implies that Edom [i.e., Eisov] allowed them to pass through their land. Yet, it is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 20:21), “Edom refused... and the Israelites turned away from them.” For this reason, Rashi explains: “This does not refer to [our] passing through etc.” You might ask: The verse here implies that Moav also sold food and water to them, but in Parshas Ki Teitzei it is written (below 23:4), “Neither an Ammonite nor a Moavite shall enter into the community... because they did not greet you with bread and water.” Re”m answers: Perhaps there is a [significant] difference between קדמו (greeting [with food]) and השבירו (selling food). For the Moavites did not greet them with bread and water, but they did sell food and water to them. But the verse, “they did not greet you,” means without [charging] money. An alternative answer is: The verse means, “Neither an Ammonite nor a Moavite shall enter into the community — Ammon because they did not greet you, and Moav because they hired Bilaam against you, etc.”

V. 29. כאשר עשו לי וגו׳ bezieht sich nur auf den Verkauf von Speise und Trank, da ja die Söhne Esaws ihnen den Durchzug nicht gestattet haben.

כאשר עשו לי בני עשו, “as the descendants of Esau did for me.” This was not a reference to traversing their territory, but a reference to their letting the Israelites buy their water and food from them. The Torah had never spelled this out before, but it is logical to assume that they had done so, seeing that the Torah had specifically permitted them to do so. (Deut. 2,6) Our verse merely explains what was meant in verse 6., כאשר עשו לי בני עשו היושבים בשעיר והמואבים היושבים בער“as the descendants of Esau who live in Seir have done for me, as well as the Moabites who dwell in Or.” It sounds clear that both the Moabites mentioned here as well as the Edomites mentioned here had volunteered to supply the Israelites with these victuals. This is in stark contrast to what the Torah had described in Deut. 23,4 as the reason why proselytes from the Moabites and the Ammonites must not be accepted. It says there that these two tribes had not come forward with offers of bread and water for a nation that had just come out of Egypt, and had hired Bileam to curse the Israelites. How do we reconcile these two verses? Moreover, the Talmud in tractate two in tractate Yevamot, folio 77, even tells that several hundreds of years later, some of the Israelites wanted to declare King David as not fit to be their king, but as not being Jewish, since his maternal ancestor Ruth had been a Moabite, and her conversion therefore was null and void. In light of all this, some commentators feel forced to conclude that the verses from Deut. 2,6 until and including verse 29, are only Moses’ formulation of the words the delegation were to say to the rulers of that land, but are not to be understood as testimony by the Torah, and that some Moabites and some Edomites had come forward with such offers. What follows are words by Moses recalling what had happened in how making war on Sichon and Og had not been aggression by the Israelites, but self defense, as the other side had started the hostilities. Instead of understanding the Torah as telling us that the Moabites of Or and the Ammonites had been generous, Moses includes them all in a negative light. None of these kings had allowed the Israelites to cross their lands. The ones that got away with it were the ones whom G-d had commanded the Israelites not to harass as they were not Canaanites, on the contrary, were related to the Israelites through Avraham‘s family.

עד אשר אעבר את הירדן UNTIL I SHALL PASS OVER THE JORDAN — This is to be connected with "Let me pass through thy land” (v. 27).

This refers to the statement, “Let me pass through [your land].” And not to the statement, “Food for money sell me,” which immediately precedes it. Otherwise, what is the meaning of, “[Sell me food] until I will have crossed the Yardein”? It should say instead, “Until I will have crossed your border,” as it is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 21:22).

כי הקשה ה' אלוקיך את רוחו, in order for him to refuse to allow the Israelites to traverse his territory.

ולא אבה פיחון…העבירנו בו, "and Sichon did not want us to traverse it, etc." Whenever the expression לא אבה is used it describes a refusal without an adequate reason being offered. Although Sichon had no reason to fear that the Israelites would infringe on any of his rights and he was convinced that the Israelites were physically unable to cause him any harm, he still refused to let them pass. This is why the Torah had to provide the reason, i.e. כי הקשה ה׳ את רוחו, "G'd helped his spirit to be obstinate."

כי הקשה ה' אלו-היך את רוחו ואמץ את לבבו, “for the Lord your G’d hardened his spirit and made his heart stubborn.” This kind of language is employed only when the people concerned are wicked in the extreme and beyond redemption. Pharaoh was another example of such a person whom G’d deprived of his free will as a penalty for abusing it so grossly. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Teshuvah 6,3). Seeing that these people’s sins were not outgrowths of an overpowering urge, but were based on a deliberate attempt to thwart G’d, they are denied the opportunity to repent at a certain stage in their lives. Even when they are emotionally ready to repent, G’d causes some event which make their minds resist such attempts. You will find that the Torah does not mention such an attempt by G’d to prevent Pharaoh from true repentance until after he had already failed to repent and his promise four times (compare Exodus 7,13; 8,11; 8,28; 9,7;). We find something similar in Kings I 18,37 where Elijah refers to G’d having caused the hearts of the people of Israel as turning away from Him as a punishment for their many and repeated sins (Maimonides Hilchot Teshuvah 6,3).

V. 30. כי הקשה ד׳ אלהיך (siehe zu Schmot Kap. 14, 3 u. 4). Auch hier dürfte Sichon aus dem Verhalten Israels gegen Ammon und Moab, insbesondere aus ihrem Umgehen des edomitischen Gebietes, durch welches sie den kürzesten Weg ins Land gehabt hätten, Veranlassung zum Widerstand und Kampfesmut geschöpft haben. הקשה: zum Widerstand, ואמץ את לבבו: zum Angriff.

ואמץ את לבבו, in order to make war against them.

החלתי תת לפניך I HAVE BEGUN TO GIVE [SIHON] BEFORE THEE — He cast down the tutelary angel of the Amorites, who was in the upper spheres, beneath Moses’ feet and made him tread upon his neck (cf. Rashi on Numbers 24:2).

ראה החילותי תת לפניך, "Behold, I have begun to deliver up to you, etc." G'd used the word: "I have begun" in the past tense, and the word refers to the time G'd had hardened the spirit of Sichon to deny Israel the right of passage through his country in order to have a pretext to deliver him into Israel's hands. The word החילותי refers to the giving of the land, not to the previous paragraph. Moses misunderstood thinking that the word referred to the whole previous paragraph. This was what caused him to think that G'd had revoked His decree against him and this is what prompted his entreaty at the beginning of the next פרשה as explained there by Sifri.

V. 31. ראה: sein Widerstand ist bereits der Anfang seines Falles. החל רש לרשת את ארצו: fange deine Landesbesitznahme damit an, sein Land in Besitz zu nehmen. Mit Sichons Land beginne deine Besitznahme.

ויצא סיחן AND SIHON WENT FORTH — He did not send for Og to help him: this serves to teach you that they did not require one another's help, so mighty was each of them.

He did not send for Og, etc. Because they were powerful.

ואת בנו [AND WE SMOTE HIM] AND HIS SONS — It is written בנו, "his son" (although read as בניו "his sons"), for he had a son who was as mighty as himself (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 25).

It (בנו) is written, etc. Since בנו lacks the letter yud, it [means “his son” and] implies that Sichon only had one son. Yet, since both syllables are vocalized with a kamatz, it [means “his sons” and] implies that he had many sons. Rather the word בנו indicates that Sichon had one son who was clearly recognizable as his son, for he was as mighty as his father. Therefore, it is written בנו (his son), without a yud. And this verse is informing us that he was killed just as all his other sons were killed.

מתם means MEN. — Of the spoil taken from Sihon it is stated (v. 35) בזזנו לנו, an expression denoting plunder (בזה), because then this was an object of desire to them, so that each man took spoil for himself. But when they came to the plundering of Og, they were already full to satiety, and it was contemptible in their eyes, so that they tore in pieces and cast away cattle and garments, and took only silver and gold. On this account it is said (Deuteronomy 3:7) בַּזֹּנוּ לנו which is an expression denoting "holding in contempt" (בזיון). Thus is it expounded in Siphre in the chapter beginning with "And Israel dwelt in Shittim״ (Numbers 25:1).

AND WE UTTERLY DESTROYED EVERY CITY, THE MEN, AND THE WOMEN, AND THE LITTLE ONES — who were of the Amorites, and they were commanded thereon, as it is said, But of the cities of these peoples, that the Eternal thy G-d giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.²⁵⁷Further, 20:16. Even so, Moses opened discussions with them peacefully, for such is the commandment [that even for the seven nations we were obligated to proclaim peace to them] as I will explain with the help of G-d.²⁵²Further, 20:10. But to Og the king of Bashan he did not proclaim peace because Og had come forth to battle against Israel before they even came to his city.²⁵⁸This is clearly indicated in Scripture: Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan, and Og, the king of Bashan came out against us (above, 3:1). I have already explained the subject in the section Zoth Chukath.²⁵⁹Numbers 21:21.

ונחרם כל עיר מתם, “we destroyed every populated city.” Nachmanides writes that this was justified as the Emorites belonged to the seven tribes of the Canaanites concerning whom G’d had issued the decree: “do not allow a single soul to survive!” (Deut. 20,16) In light of this it is surprising that Moses offered the hand of peace to these people! I plan to explain this (compare Nachmanides on Deut. 20,17) as well as why no such offer was made to Og, King of Bashan, (but to the same tribe of people).The latter had come out swinging, without waiting for on offer of an olive branch.

V. 34. מתים, rad. מתה wovon מתי (siehe Bereschit S. 102). עיר מתים: das Transitorische in der Stadt: die lebenden sterblichen Menschen darin. רמב׳׳ן bemerkt, dass die Bevölkerung eine emoritische war (siehe V. 24) und demgemäß dem göttlichen Verhängnisse: רק מערי העמים האלה וגו׳ לא תחיה כל נשמה (Kap. 20, 16 u. 17 — siehe daselbst) unterlag. Dies Verhängnis war jedoch an die Bedingung geknüpft, dass sie sich nicht in friedlicher Unterwürfigkeit dem Entsagen des Polytheismus und der Verpflichtung zu den allgemeinen menschlichen Pflichten ז׳ מצות בני נח unterziehen wollten. Weshalb denn auch hier dem emoritischen Könige Sichon zuvor Frieden angeboten worden war (V. 26 f.).

V. 35. בזז scheint das Verteilen des herrenlos Gewordenen, שלל das Berauben des Eigentums zu bedeuten (siehe auch Bamidbar 31, 11 und 31, 32).

V. 36. קריה von קרה (siehe Bereschit S. 274 u. 485): eine nach einem bestimmten Plane angelegte, in sich verbundene Stadt, deren Teile also mit einander lückenlos verbunden sind, dass sie den Zugang von außen erschweren. שגבה (siehe Bereschit S. 342). Verwandt damit auch שקף, in der Höhe überragen, daher משקוף, die Oberschwelle, und השקיף, aus der Höhe herabschauen.

כל יד נחל יבק means, ALL THE DISTRICT BESIDE THE BROOK OF JABBOK.

All along Wadi Yabok. (Literally, “The hand of Wadi Yabok”). Since a person’s hand is always at his side, any edge can be referred to as “hand.” See Parshas Shemos regarding the verse (2:5), “Walking on the edge (יד) of the river.”

V. 37. וכל אשר צוה וגו׳ (siehe zu Wajikra 4, 2).

רק אל ארץ בני עמון לא קרבת, “only to the land of the Bney Ammon did you not come close;” according to Ibn Ezra Moses speaks only of land that was in possession of that nation at the time he spoke. This excluded the land captured from Sichon, which at one time did belong to the Bney Ammon, but which would not be returned to them by the Israelites who had taken it away from Sichon.

וכל אשר צוה ה' אלהינו לנו — This means, AND ALL WHICH THE LORD OUR GOD COMMANDED US not to capture, we left.

Not to capture, we left [uncaptured]. Literally, this verse implies that they did not attack what Hashem had commanded them to attack. Therefore, Rashi explains: “Not to capture, etc.”