וְאֶת־הַֽחִוִּ֥י וְאֶת־הַֽעַרְקִ֖י וְאֶת־הַסִּינִֽי׃
히위 족속과 알가 족속과 신 족속과
Ramban
THE EMIM ABODE THEREIN FORMERLY etc. “You [Moses] might think that this is the land of the Rephaim which I gave to Abraham133Genesis 15:20. because the Emim, who are Rephaim, dwelled there formerly, but this [the land of the Moabites] is not the land [that I promised to Abraham], because I drove out those Rephaim from before the children of Lot and settled them in place of the Rephaim. Those Emim were considered Rephaim,134In our texts of Rashi this is marked as a comment upon Verse 11: “They also were accounted Rephaim, even as the Anakim (giants).” This is interpreted by Rashi to mean: “The Emim who formerly lived in the lands of Ammon and Moab were accounted as Rephaim, that is, the Anakim, (giants). But those lands of Ammon and Moab were not the land of the Rephaim which I promised to Abraham.” Therefore Moses was not to wage war against the lands of Ammon and Moab. like Anakim (giants) who are called Rephaim [from the root raphoh — weak] because the hands of everyone who sees them become ‘weak.’ Emim [from the root eimah — fear] are so called because their ‘dread’ lays upon people.” This is Rashi’s language. And similarly he wrote [further, in connection with the land of Ammon of which Scripture states], That also is accounted a land of Rephaim:135Further, Verse 20. “because the Rephaim dwelled there formerly, but that [land] is not what I gave to Abraham.”
But I wonder at the words of the Rabbi! Why should Scripture explain to us concerning the land of Ammon and Moab that it is not the land of Rephaim which He gave to Abraham? Was it to state that it was not due to Israel and was not part of the land which G-d swore to their fathers to give them? [That could not be the reason! On the contrary,] Scripture states only, because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession136Verse 19. meaning that, although it was part of Abraham’s inheritance, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave it to the children of Lot for Abraham’s sake. As Rashi himself wrote:137Here on Verse 5. “[The lands of] two nations [from among the ten nations originally given to Abraham — Genesis 15:19-21], I gave to the children of Lot [Ammon and Moab] as a reward because Lot went with Abraham to Egypt138Genesis 13:1. and kept silent concerning what Abraham said about his wife, ‘she is my sister.’” Moreover, the Rabbi himself wrote with reference to Esau:137Here on Verse 5. “[The lands of] ten nations139Ibid., 15:19-21: the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite; and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim; and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite. I gave to Abraham. Seven of them will be yours. [Concerning the lands of] the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite — which are Ammon and Moab, and Mount Seir — one [i.e., Mount Seir] belongs to Esau, and two of them to the children of Lot.” And if so, the lands of Ammon and Moab, and Mount Seir were certainly of the inheritance of Abraham; why then did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Moses that he should not think that this [land of Ammon and Moab] is the land of Rephaim which was given to Abraham? What difference is there between [the lands of] the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite [which were promised to Abraham but given to the children of Lot and Esau], and [the land of] the Rephaim [which was also promised to Abraham]?140In other words, Rashi wrote of the lands of the Kenite, etc., that, notwithstanding the fact that they were of the inheritance of Abraham, they were still given to the children of Lot for the reason stated by Rashi that Lot protected Abraham’s secret in Egypt. Similarly we could say that the land of the Rephaim, too, was originally destined for Abraham, but that G-d gave it to another nation. Therefore, on what does Rashi base his assertion that this land was not the land of Rephaim promised to Abraham? Moreover, the expression Rephaim dwelled there ‘l’phanim’ (of old)135Further, Verse 20. indicates that it belongs to them because they dwelled there before anyone else, as in the verse ‘l’phanim’ (of old) Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth141Psalms 102:26. [thus raising another question on Rashi’s assertion: If the Rephaim lived there “of old,” why was this land given to the children of Lot]?
But the interpretation of the verses is the opposite of the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] words. It was because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, Be not at enmity with Moab etc. because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession,142Verse 9. Scripture tells that the land was indeed due to the seed of Abraham except that He gave it to the children of Lot. Scripture further says that in that land there dwelled of old a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim,143Verse 10 before us. and, therefore, the Moabites called them ‘Emim’144Verse 11. because of the great “dread” which they cast upon those who saw them. Now G-d, in honor of Abraham, performed a miracle for the children of Lot. They defeated [the Emim] and drove them from before them; it is therefore not proper to take from them by force the land which G-d gave them through a miracle. ‘Yeichashvu’ [They were also ‘yeichashvu’ Rephaim]144Verse 11. is an expression of importance and esteem, similar to the following: he was despised, and we did not ‘chashavnuhu’ (esteem him);145Isaiah 53:3. who shall not ‘yachshovu’ (regard) silver?;146Ibid., 13:17. for how little is he ‘nechshav’ (esteemed)?147Ibid., 2:22. and so many others. And in the language of the Sages we find the expression adam chashuv (an esteemed person).148Berachoth 19a.
This is why Scripture placed the statements in proximity to [the verse that discussed the lands of Ammon and Moab, the children of Lot]. And in Seir the Horim abode formerly.149Verse 12. It declares that for the same reason He stated [for restraining Israel from attacking] Moab, He likewise withheld them [Israel] from attacking the land of Seir. Because formerly it also belonged to the Horim, and it was part of the gift to Abraham — for the Horite is identical with the Hivite, and they [the Hivites] were of the children of Canaan, as it is said, Esau took his wives of the daughters of ‘Canaan’ etc. and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon ‘the Hivite’150Genesis 36:2. and Zibeon was of the sons of Seir ‘the Horite,’ the inhabitants of the land.151Ibid., Verse 20. So, also, wherever the inheritance of Israel is mentioned, the Hivite is always included with the Canaanite among the seven nations,152See further, 7:1, etc. because the Hivite is enumerated as the sixth son among the children of Canaan.153See Genesis 10:17. You will also see this in the narrative of the war of Amraphel which he fought against the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zebaiim, and Zoar,154See ibid., 14:8-9. who were Canaanite kings. They [Amraphel and his associates] smote ‘the Rephaiim’ in Ashteroth-karnaim,155Ibid., Verse 5. and ‘the Horite’ in their mountain, Seir,156Ibid., Verse 6. for the Horite and the Rephaim belonged to the Canaanite kings.
It is possible that [the Horite] was called Hivite [from the term chivi — a snake] because he was like a serpent in the way.157Ibid., 49:17. He was also called the Horite from the noun ‘chor’ (the hole of) the asp.158Isaiah 11:8. For names [like Horite, Hivite] preserve the meaning and change letters, like Zerach (Zerah)159Numbers 26:13. The Hebrew word Zerach means “shining.” and Tzochar (Zohar),160Exodus 6:15. Tzochar and Zerach both are names for the same son of Simeon. of the expression: and ‘tzochar’ (white) wool;161Ezekiel 27:18. ‘tzchoroth’ (white) asses,162Judges 5:10. Ramban thus shows that the names Zerach and Tzochar (from the words “shining” and “white”) both refer to the same person although the letters in the names interchange. [and in the case of the Horite and Hivite, the names were chosen to suggest the treacherous, snake-like nature of the people]. They also assign new names to praise [someone]. Thus the name Ya’akov (Jacob), an expression of guile or of deviousness,163Genesis 27:36. — Ibid., 32:29 [Jacob’s name changed to Israel]. was changed to Israel [from the word sar (prince)] and they called him Yeshurun (Jeshurun)164Further, 32:15. from the expression whole-hearted ‘v’yashar’ (and upright).165Job 1:1.
Thus Scripture is stating that the Horites [whose land was] given to Abraham166Since the Horites are identical with the Hivites, as explained above, and the Hivites were children of Canaan, and the Canaanite is among the ten nations whose lands were given to Abraham (Genesis 15:21), it follows that the land of the Horites was given to Abraham. dwelled formerly in Seir, and the children of Esau who are of the seed of Abraham succeeded them and dwelled in their stead by a miraculous event. The Horites were a populous nation in their land and the children of Esau came to dwell there and overpowered them just as Israel did to the remaining nations [in the land that was] promised to Abraham, that G-d gave them in His great power. Thus G-d divided [the lands of] all these [ten] nations among the seed of Abraham — one to Esau, and the balance to Israel who was the firstborn son.167See Exodus 4:22. It is therefore not proper to steal from Esau what G-d caused him to inherit, since G-d would be angry with anyone who would forcibly take from him [Esau] the inheritance that He, blessed be He, caused him to inherit, just as He would be wroth with him who would forcibly take the Land from Israel after He caused him [Israel] to inherit it, just as it says, As for all Mine evil neighbors, that touch the inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit.168Jeremiah 12:14. This is the sense of the expression mentioned here, as Israel ‘did’ unto the Land of his inheritance,169Verse 12. This would seem to indicate that at the time that Esau conquered his land, Israel had already conquered theirs. But Israel had, at that time, not taken possession of any land. when it was not yet done! [But the meaning thereof is as explained: that just as G-d would be wroth with him who would rob Israel of his inheritance after He will have given it to him, in the same way, He does not give Israel the right to take the land of Esau after having given it to him.]
Similarly He further said with reference to [the land of] the children of Ammon that it is of the land of the Rephaim [which G-d gave to Abraham]170Genesis 15:20. for that, too, belonged first to the Rephaim. The Ammonites called them Zamzummim,171Further, Verse 20. from the expression ‘z’mamo (his evil scheme) do not further,172Psalms 140:9. except that [the letters zayin and mem] are doubled [in the name “Zamzummim”], which thus indicates “the people from whom nothing is withheld which they purpose to do.”173See Genesis 11:6.
But I wonder at the words of the Rabbi! Why should Scripture explain to us concerning the land of Ammon and Moab that it is not the land of Rephaim which He gave to Abraham? Was it to state that it was not due to Israel and was not part of the land which G-d swore to their fathers to give them? [That could not be the reason! On the contrary,] Scripture states only, because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession136Verse 19. meaning that, although it was part of Abraham’s inheritance, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave it to the children of Lot for Abraham’s sake. As Rashi himself wrote:137Here on Verse 5. “[The lands of] two nations [from among the ten nations originally given to Abraham — Genesis 15:19-21], I gave to the children of Lot [Ammon and Moab] as a reward because Lot went with Abraham to Egypt138Genesis 13:1. and kept silent concerning what Abraham said about his wife, ‘she is my sister.’” Moreover, the Rabbi himself wrote with reference to Esau:137Here on Verse 5. “[The lands of] ten nations139Ibid., 15:19-21: the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite; and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim; and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite. I gave to Abraham. Seven of them will be yours. [Concerning the lands of] the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite — which are Ammon and Moab, and Mount Seir — one [i.e., Mount Seir] belongs to Esau, and two of them to the children of Lot.” And if so, the lands of Ammon and Moab, and Mount Seir were certainly of the inheritance of Abraham; why then did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Moses that he should not think that this [land of Ammon and Moab] is the land of Rephaim which was given to Abraham? What difference is there between [the lands of] the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite [which were promised to Abraham but given to the children of Lot and Esau], and [the land of] the Rephaim [which was also promised to Abraham]?140In other words, Rashi wrote of the lands of the Kenite, etc., that, notwithstanding the fact that they were of the inheritance of Abraham, they were still given to the children of Lot for the reason stated by Rashi that Lot protected Abraham’s secret in Egypt. Similarly we could say that the land of the Rephaim, too, was originally destined for Abraham, but that G-d gave it to another nation. Therefore, on what does Rashi base his assertion that this land was not the land of Rephaim promised to Abraham? Moreover, the expression Rephaim dwelled there ‘l’phanim’ (of old)135Further, Verse 20. indicates that it belongs to them because they dwelled there before anyone else, as in the verse ‘l’phanim’ (of old) Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth141Psalms 102:26. [thus raising another question on Rashi’s assertion: If the Rephaim lived there “of old,” why was this land given to the children of Lot]?
But the interpretation of the verses is the opposite of the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] words. It was because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, Be not at enmity with Moab etc. because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession,142Verse 9. Scripture tells that the land was indeed due to the seed of Abraham except that He gave it to the children of Lot. Scripture further says that in that land there dwelled of old a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim,143Verse 10 before us. and, therefore, the Moabites called them ‘Emim’144Verse 11. because of the great “dread” which they cast upon those who saw them. Now G-d, in honor of Abraham, performed a miracle for the children of Lot. They defeated [the Emim] and drove them from before them; it is therefore not proper to take from them by force the land which G-d gave them through a miracle. ‘Yeichashvu’ [They were also ‘yeichashvu’ Rephaim]144Verse 11. is an expression of importance and esteem, similar to the following: he was despised, and we did not ‘chashavnuhu’ (esteem him);145Isaiah 53:3. who shall not ‘yachshovu’ (regard) silver?;146Ibid., 13:17. for how little is he ‘nechshav’ (esteemed)?147Ibid., 2:22. and so many others. And in the language of the Sages we find the expression adam chashuv (an esteemed person).148Berachoth 19a.
This is why Scripture placed the statements in proximity to [the verse that discussed the lands of Ammon and Moab, the children of Lot]. And in Seir the Horim abode formerly.149Verse 12. It declares that for the same reason He stated [for restraining Israel from attacking] Moab, He likewise withheld them [Israel] from attacking the land of Seir. Because formerly it also belonged to the Horim, and it was part of the gift to Abraham — for the Horite is identical with the Hivite, and they [the Hivites] were of the children of Canaan, as it is said, Esau took his wives of the daughters of ‘Canaan’ etc. and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon ‘the Hivite’150Genesis 36:2. and Zibeon was of the sons of Seir ‘the Horite,’ the inhabitants of the land.151Ibid., Verse 20. So, also, wherever the inheritance of Israel is mentioned, the Hivite is always included with the Canaanite among the seven nations,152See further, 7:1, etc. because the Hivite is enumerated as the sixth son among the children of Canaan.153See Genesis 10:17. You will also see this in the narrative of the war of Amraphel which he fought against the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zebaiim, and Zoar,154See ibid., 14:8-9. who were Canaanite kings. They [Amraphel and his associates] smote ‘the Rephaiim’ in Ashteroth-karnaim,155Ibid., Verse 5. and ‘the Horite’ in their mountain, Seir,156Ibid., Verse 6. for the Horite and the Rephaim belonged to the Canaanite kings.
It is possible that [the Horite] was called Hivite [from the term chivi — a snake] because he was like a serpent in the way.157Ibid., 49:17. He was also called the Horite from the noun ‘chor’ (the hole of) the asp.158Isaiah 11:8. For names [like Horite, Hivite] preserve the meaning and change letters, like Zerach (Zerah)159Numbers 26:13. The Hebrew word Zerach means “shining.” and Tzochar (Zohar),160Exodus 6:15. Tzochar and Zerach both are names for the same son of Simeon. of the expression: and ‘tzochar’ (white) wool;161Ezekiel 27:18. ‘tzchoroth’ (white) asses,162Judges 5:10. Ramban thus shows that the names Zerach and Tzochar (from the words “shining” and “white”) both refer to the same person although the letters in the names interchange. [and in the case of the Horite and Hivite, the names were chosen to suggest the treacherous, snake-like nature of the people]. They also assign new names to praise [someone]. Thus the name Ya’akov (Jacob), an expression of guile or of deviousness,163Genesis 27:36. — Ibid., 32:29 [Jacob’s name changed to Israel]. was changed to Israel [from the word sar (prince)] and they called him Yeshurun (Jeshurun)164Further, 32:15. from the expression whole-hearted ‘v’yashar’ (and upright).165Job 1:1.
Thus Scripture is stating that the Horites [whose land was] given to Abraham166Since the Horites are identical with the Hivites, as explained above, and the Hivites were children of Canaan, and the Canaanite is among the ten nations whose lands were given to Abraham (Genesis 15:21), it follows that the land of the Horites was given to Abraham. dwelled formerly in Seir, and the children of Esau who are of the seed of Abraham succeeded them and dwelled in their stead by a miraculous event. The Horites were a populous nation in their land and the children of Esau came to dwell there and overpowered them just as Israel did to the remaining nations [in the land that was] promised to Abraham, that G-d gave them in His great power. Thus G-d divided [the lands of] all these [ten] nations among the seed of Abraham — one to Esau, and the balance to Israel who was the firstborn son.167See Exodus 4:22. It is therefore not proper to steal from Esau what G-d caused him to inherit, since G-d would be angry with anyone who would forcibly take from him [Esau] the inheritance that He, blessed be He, caused him to inherit, just as He would be wroth with him who would forcibly take the Land from Israel after He caused him [Israel] to inherit it, just as it says, As for all Mine evil neighbors, that touch the inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit.168Jeremiah 12:14. This is the sense of the expression mentioned here, as Israel ‘did’ unto the Land of his inheritance,169Verse 12. This would seem to indicate that at the time that Esau conquered his land, Israel had already conquered theirs. But Israel had, at that time, not taken possession of any land. when it was not yet done! [But the meaning thereof is as explained: that just as G-d would be wroth with him who would rob Israel of his inheritance after He will have given it to him, in the same way, He does not give Israel the right to take the land of Esau after having given it to him.]
Similarly He further said with reference to [the land of] the children of Ammon that it is of the land of the Rephaim [which G-d gave to Abraham]170Genesis 15:20. for that, too, belonged first to the Rephaim. The Ammonites called them Zamzummim,171Further, Verse 20. from the expression ‘z’mamo (his evil scheme) do not further,172Psalms 140:9. except that [the letters zayin and mem] are doubled [in the name “Zamzummim”], which thus indicates “the people from whom nothing is withheld which they purpose to do.”173See Genesis 11:6.
Ramban
And the meaning of the verse, And ‘he saw’ the Kenite269Verse 21. is also that Balaam [actually] saw their land, for he [the Kenite] dwelt with Amalek. And he took up his parable, and said269Verse 21. to them by way of counsel, Firm is thy dwelling-place, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock,269Verse 21. meaning: “Make thy dwelling in a firm place, and [set] thy nest in a rock, that is, depart and go away from the Amalekites, lest thou be swept away270Genesis 19:15. See also I Samuel 15:6. with them, and put in a firm rock thy dwelling, with Israel,” just as it is said, And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah etc.271Judges 1:16. And Balaam continued: For if the Kenite will be wasted,272Verse 22. meaning to say: “Do not be afraid of coming [to settle] in Israel, because even if you will be wasted together with them, because when the enemy will exile Israel they will destroy all inhabitants from the Land, — ‘ad mah’ (for how long) will Ashur [Assyria] carry thee away captive?272Verse 22. He will not hold you captive forever, because you shall be redeemed from his hand together with Israel, but if you will remain with the Amalekites, your end will be to perish with them forever.” Similarly we find [this usage of ad mah in the following verses]: ‘ad mah’ O Eternal, wilt Thou be angry forever?;273Psalms 79:5. ‘ad meh’ shall my glory be put to shame?274Ibid., 4:3. — which [in both cases] means “for how long.” Or [it may be that the phrase ad mah] comes to emphasize the magnitude of something, such as: ‘mah’(how) weak is thy heart!;275Ezekiel 16:30. ‘mah’(how)was thy mother a lioness!276Ibid., 19:2. and [here it means] to say: “To what extent can the captivity which Assyria will take captive of you reach, and how great [can it be]? It should be of no significance at all to you, because you will not [ultimately] be destroyed, as you would be if you were together with Amalek.” Therefore Balaam continued and took up his parable about Assyria, [saying] that the time of his own land277Jeremiah 27:7. will come for him too, and nobody will be saved from the great and terrible day of the Eternal278Malachi 3:23. [which will come] upon all the nations; for ships shall come from the coast of Kittim, which refers to the Romans, and they shall afflict [the] Ashur [who is] mentioned [later on in that verse], and shall afflict Eber,279Verse 24. which means Israel. He is thus stating that [the Romans] will oppress both the captors [i.e., the Assyrians] and their captives [the Hebrews]; but he also — the people of Kittim [namely the Romans, as explained above] — shall come to destruction279Verse 24. in the end.
Thus Balaam completed his words [by foretelling] the destruction of the Kittim, who are the fourth beast280In Daniel’s vision of the four kingdoms [symbolized by four beasts], the fourth beast represents Rome (see Daniel 7:7). See an important note on this subject in Genesis, Vol. I, p. 350, Note 8. which will be destroyed by the hand of the Messiah, as it is said, I beheld even till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire,281Daniel 7:11. [and the phrase here] shall come to destruction [is used] because their memory will be completely extirpated. Now it is well-known in the sayings of our Rabbis282Abodah Zarah 2b. that the fourth beast which Daniel saw280In Daniel’s vision of the four kingdoms [symbolized by four beasts], the fourth beast represents Rome (see Daniel 7:7). See an important note on this subject in Genesis, Vol. I, p. 350, Note 8. represents Rome who exiled us, and it is this [“beast”] which will be destroyed by the hand of the Messiah.
Now do not be astonished at this [explanation we have given above, that Kittim means Rome, and do not refute it] because the third kingdom [mentioned in Daniel]280In Daniel’s vision of the four kingdoms [symbolized by four beasts], the fourth beast represents Rome (see Daniel 7:7). See an important note on this subject in Genesis, Vol. I, p. 350, Note 8. was Greece, as is stated explicitly in the Book of Daniel,283Daniel 7:6. See also Ramban further on for a fuller explanation. and the Kittim are of the seed of Javan [who was the ancestor of the Greeks], as it is said, And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim284Genesis 10:4. [and therefore one might think that the Romans, who are the fourth beast, i.e., the fourth kingdom, could not be the Kittim]! For it is indeed true [that Kittim are the Greeks, as is stated in the verse quoted above,284Genesis 10:4. but nonetheless here it refers to the Romans, who were descendants of the Greeks]. And our Rabbis admit this [that the Greeks and Romans were related], as they have said:285Megillah 6b. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 302, Note 86. “Italy of Greece — this is the great city of Rome,” and it is well-known that the name of the land of which [the city of] Rome forms a part, is called in their books and in their language “Italy.” [Thus it is clear that Greece and Rome are related, and therefore the Kittim, who in the Book of Genesis are described284Genesis 10:4. as descendants of the Greeks, refer here in the prophecy of Balaam to Rome.] But the history [of the Kittim] is similar to that of Canaan; for the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, and the Hivite, they and their children and their fathers, are each of them considered an independent nation, just as it says: 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.286Deuteronomy 7:1. The reason for this [i.e., for considering each one a separate nation], is because each one of these [seven] sons [of Canaan] became a mighty nation, and these [individual] nations were called by the names of their ancestors. But the other sons of Canaan287Genesis 10:17-18: the Arkite, and the Sinite, etc. who did not become strong as did their brothers, considered themselves a part of him [i.e., of Canaan].288See Vol. I, p. 151, for an explanation why the verse in Deuteronomy 7:1 [quoted above] counts the Canaanite as one of Canaan’s seven children, since, as we have explained, each of his seven sons founded a nation in his own right. So also the “land of Canaan” is so called because of [Canaan] the father [and not because of that particular son of his who founded the Canaanite people — since all his seven sons lived there with their peoples.286Deuteronomy 7:1.]. And the Philistines and Caphtorim, the sons of [Mitzraim]289Genesis 10:13-14. also became separate nations [whereas the other sons of Mitzraim: Ludim, Anamin etc. were known merely as descendants of Mitzraim].290Ibid., Verse 13. Similarly we find in the families mentioned in the section of Pinchas: [The sons of Menasheh]: of Machir, the family of the Machirites — and Machir begot Gilead; of Gilead, the family of the Gileadites.291Further, 26:29. Here the Gileadites — descended from Gilead the son of Machir — are counted by Scripture as a separate family, although it first mentioned the family of the Machirites. This is because Gilead increased more than the other sons of Machir, and became a large family in his own right. There are many such cases [in Scripture]. Here too: The sons of Javan: Elishah and Tarshish284Genesis 10:4. are considered part of Javan [Greece], and they constitute the third kingdom [in the vision of Daniel], but the Kittim [who were also amongst the sons of Javan]284Genesis 10:4. became a mighty nation, and are [therefore] counted as the fourth kingdom [i.e., that of Rome], and it is this kingdom which will continue until the [times of the] Messiah, and it will be destroyed by him.
But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has confused this matter,292Ibn Ezra in his commentary to Daniel 7:14. To include all the empires in the “four kingdoms” that will rule the world, as symbolized by the four beasts, Ibn Ezra suggested that both Greece and Rome should be counted as the “third beast,” and the “fourth beast” will then be the Islamic empires of his times. Ramban totally rejects this interpretation. and introduced into it the kingdom of Ishmael [i.e., the Arabic kingdoms of his times] for their fear was fallen upon him,293Esther 8:17. and he argued: “How can one not count such a great and powerful empire [as the Arabic empire, amongst those seen in Daniel’s visions]!” This argument stems from a lack of knowledge, for each of the four kingdoms which Daniel saw, gained power one after another, and each one prevailed over its predecessor and seized the kingdom [of the world] from it. [Likewise] each one continued the enslavement and exile of Israel during the period that it ruled. Therefore Daniel saw in his dream that the Chaldeans [i.e., the Babylonians] would [be the first] to enslave us [i.e., the Jewish people], and that after them the Persians would seize the kingdom, and would [continue] to enslave us, and after them in their stead would come the Greeks; and after them the Romans would become powerful and seize the kingdom, and subjugate us until the time of the end294Daniel 12:9. [of the exile], for their kingdom would only come to an end by the hand of the redeemer [i.e., the Messiah]. Thus [the extent of] our exile is the duration of [rule of] the four kingdoms [Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome], and even if there will be other empires in the world contemporaneously with these four kingdoms, Scripture does not count them and Daniel did not see them [in his visions], since he did not have to see them at all in order to know the [date of the final] redemption. And indeed in the days of [the kingdoms of] Persia and Greece, and today also, there are great empires in the world, besides those of Rome and Ishmael, such as the peoples of India, Ethiopia, Rumania, the Tartars, and others. And if so, [Ibn Ezra] should have counted many kingdoms! And [another reason why Ibn Ezra is mistaken is that] it is well-known that it was the Romans who exiled us in the days of Vespasian and Titus, and not the Ishmaelites [the Arabs]; therefore wherever we are, whether under Ishmael, or [anywhere] from India, even unto Ethiopia,295Esther 1:1. This is a term which refers to anywhere in the known world. we are in the exile of Rome, until her memory will be destroyed and we shall be redeemed from it. Who knows, perhaps the kingdom of Ishmael will still be destroyed before the coming of the Messiah! But the fourth beast is the one which exiled us, as is said with reference to it, I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints and prevailed against them.296Daniel 7:21. We shall remain in this exile until the coming of the Messiah, as it is written, until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High; and the time came, and the saints possessed the kingdom.297Ibid., Verse 22. “The Ancient of Days” is a synonym for G-d the Eternal. And anyone who understands the visions of Daniel will find this interpretation clearly indicated there. For in the second vision Daniel saw the pushing ram,298Ibid., 8:4. which was explained to him as [representing the] kingdom of Persia,299Ibid., Verse 20. and the rough he-goat is the king of Greece, and the great horn is the first king300Ibid., Verse 21. Alexander [of Greece], who prevailed over Persia. And when he was strong, his kingdom was broken,301Ibid., Verse 8. in the place whereof four stood up,302Ibid., Verse 22. these being his four generals [Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus and Lysimachus] who reigned in his stead after his death. And Scripture mentions: And ‘out of one of them’ came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauteous Land303Ibid., Verse 9. and it says concerning it, Yea, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host, and from him the continual burnt-offering was taken away.304Ibid., Verse 11. Thus it clearly refers to the kingdom of Rome, which came “out of Greece” since [the Kittim referred to by Balaam, which means, as explained above, Rome] were of his sons [i.e., Javan’s,284Genesis 10:4. who is the ancestor of the Greeks], and it is that kingdom [Rome] which removed the continual burnt-offering304Ibid., Verse 11. [through destroying the Second Temple]. Therefore [Daniel] calls both of them [Greece and Rome] one beast, this being the rough he-goat,300Ibid., Verse 21. one of whose [four] horns waxed great303Ibid., Verse 9. and removed the continual burnt-offering.304Ibid., Verse 11. There are further such proofs there [in the Book of Daniel, that the fourth kingdom means the Romans]; however the tradition of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, [that the “fourth beast” is the kingdom of Rome] is true [in its own right] and needs no other support.
Thus Balaam completed his words [by foretelling] the destruction of the Kittim, who are the fourth beast280In Daniel’s vision of the four kingdoms [symbolized by four beasts], the fourth beast represents Rome (see Daniel 7:7). See an important note on this subject in Genesis, Vol. I, p. 350, Note 8. which will be destroyed by the hand of the Messiah, as it is said, I beheld even till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire,281Daniel 7:11. [and the phrase here] shall come to destruction [is used] because their memory will be completely extirpated. Now it is well-known in the sayings of our Rabbis282Abodah Zarah 2b. that the fourth beast which Daniel saw280In Daniel’s vision of the four kingdoms [symbolized by four beasts], the fourth beast represents Rome (see Daniel 7:7). See an important note on this subject in Genesis, Vol. I, p. 350, Note 8. represents Rome who exiled us, and it is this [“beast”] which will be destroyed by the hand of the Messiah.
Now do not be astonished at this [explanation we have given above, that Kittim means Rome, and do not refute it] because the third kingdom [mentioned in Daniel]280In Daniel’s vision of the four kingdoms [symbolized by four beasts], the fourth beast represents Rome (see Daniel 7:7). See an important note on this subject in Genesis, Vol. I, p. 350, Note 8. was Greece, as is stated explicitly in the Book of Daniel,283Daniel 7:6. See also Ramban further on for a fuller explanation. and the Kittim are of the seed of Javan [who was the ancestor of the Greeks], as it is said, And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim284Genesis 10:4. [and therefore one might think that the Romans, who are the fourth beast, i.e., the fourth kingdom, could not be the Kittim]! For it is indeed true [that Kittim are the Greeks, as is stated in the verse quoted above,284Genesis 10:4. but nonetheless here it refers to the Romans, who were descendants of the Greeks]. And our Rabbis admit this [that the Greeks and Romans were related], as they have said:285Megillah 6b. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 302, Note 86. “Italy of Greece — this is the great city of Rome,” and it is well-known that the name of the land of which [the city of] Rome forms a part, is called in their books and in their language “Italy.” [Thus it is clear that Greece and Rome are related, and therefore the Kittim, who in the Book of Genesis are described284Genesis 10:4. as descendants of the Greeks, refer here in the prophecy of Balaam to Rome.] But the history [of the Kittim] is similar to that of Canaan; for the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, and the Hivite, they and their children and their fathers, are each of them considered an independent nation, just as it says: 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.286Deuteronomy 7:1. The reason for this [i.e., for considering each one a separate nation], is because each one of these [seven] sons [of Canaan] became a mighty nation, and these [individual] nations were called by the names of their ancestors. But the other sons of Canaan287Genesis 10:17-18: the Arkite, and the Sinite, etc. who did not become strong as did their brothers, considered themselves a part of him [i.e., of Canaan].288See Vol. I, p. 151, for an explanation why the verse in Deuteronomy 7:1 [quoted above] counts the Canaanite as one of Canaan’s seven children, since, as we have explained, each of his seven sons founded a nation in his own right. So also the “land of Canaan” is so called because of [Canaan] the father [and not because of that particular son of his who founded the Canaanite people — since all his seven sons lived there with their peoples.286Deuteronomy 7:1.]. And the Philistines and Caphtorim, the sons of [Mitzraim]289Genesis 10:13-14. also became separate nations [whereas the other sons of Mitzraim: Ludim, Anamin etc. were known merely as descendants of Mitzraim].290Ibid., Verse 13. Similarly we find in the families mentioned in the section of Pinchas: [The sons of Menasheh]: of Machir, the family of the Machirites — and Machir begot Gilead; of Gilead, the family of the Gileadites.291Further, 26:29. Here the Gileadites — descended from Gilead the son of Machir — are counted by Scripture as a separate family, although it first mentioned the family of the Machirites. This is because Gilead increased more than the other sons of Machir, and became a large family in his own right. There are many such cases [in Scripture]. Here too: The sons of Javan: Elishah and Tarshish284Genesis 10:4. are considered part of Javan [Greece], and they constitute the third kingdom [in the vision of Daniel], but the Kittim [who were also amongst the sons of Javan]284Genesis 10:4. became a mighty nation, and are [therefore] counted as the fourth kingdom [i.e., that of Rome], and it is this kingdom which will continue until the [times of the] Messiah, and it will be destroyed by him.
But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has confused this matter,292Ibn Ezra in his commentary to Daniel 7:14. To include all the empires in the “four kingdoms” that will rule the world, as symbolized by the four beasts, Ibn Ezra suggested that both Greece and Rome should be counted as the “third beast,” and the “fourth beast” will then be the Islamic empires of his times. Ramban totally rejects this interpretation. and introduced into it the kingdom of Ishmael [i.e., the Arabic kingdoms of his times] for their fear was fallen upon him,293Esther 8:17. and he argued: “How can one not count such a great and powerful empire [as the Arabic empire, amongst those seen in Daniel’s visions]!” This argument stems from a lack of knowledge, for each of the four kingdoms which Daniel saw, gained power one after another, and each one prevailed over its predecessor and seized the kingdom [of the world] from it. [Likewise] each one continued the enslavement and exile of Israel during the period that it ruled. Therefore Daniel saw in his dream that the Chaldeans [i.e., the Babylonians] would [be the first] to enslave us [i.e., the Jewish people], and that after them the Persians would seize the kingdom, and would [continue] to enslave us, and after them in their stead would come the Greeks; and after them the Romans would become powerful and seize the kingdom, and subjugate us until the time of the end294Daniel 12:9. [of the exile], for their kingdom would only come to an end by the hand of the redeemer [i.e., the Messiah]. Thus [the extent of] our exile is the duration of [rule of] the four kingdoms [Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome], and even if there will be other empires in the world contemporaneously with these four kingdoms, Scripture does not count them and Daniel did not see them [in his visions], since he did not have to see them at all in order to know the [date of the final] redemption. And indeed in the days of [the kingdoms of] Persia and Greece, and today also, there are great empires in the world, besides those of Rome and Ishmael, such as the peoples of India, Ethiopia, Rumania, the Tartars, and others. And if so, [Ibn Ezra] should have counted many kingdoms! And [another reason why Ibn Ezra is mistaken is that] it is well-known that it was the Romans who exiled us in the days of Vespasian and Titus, and not the Ishmaelites [the Arabs]; therefore wherever we are, whether under Ishmael, or [anywhere] from India, even unto Ethiopia,295Esther 1:1. This is a term which refers to anywhere in the known world. we are in the exile of Rome, until her memory will be destroyed and we shall be redeemed from it. Who knows, perhaps the kingdom of Ishmael will still be destroyed before the coming of the Messiah! But the fourth beast is the one which exiled us, as is said with reference to it, I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints and prevailed against them.296Daniel 7:21. We shall remain in this exile until the coming of the Messiah, as it is written, until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High; and the time came, and the saints possessed the kingdom.297Ibid., Verse 22. “The Ancient of Days” is a synonym for G-d the Eternal. And anyone who understands the visions of Daniel will find this interpretation clearly indicated there. For in the second vision Daniel saw the pushing ram,298Ibid., 8:4. which was explained to him as [representing the] kingdom of Persia,299Ibid., Verse 20. and the rough he-goat is the king of Greece, and the great horn is the first king300Ibid., Verse 21. Alexander [of Greece], who prevailed over Persia. And when he was strong, his kingdom was broken,301Ibid., Verse 8. in the place whereof four stood up,302Ibid., Verse 22. these being his four generals [Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus and Lysimachus] who reigned in his stead after his death. And Scripture mentions: And ‘out of one of them’ came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauteous Land303Ibid., Verse 9. and it says concerning it, Yea, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host, and from him the continual burnt-offering was taken away.304Ibid., Verse 11. Thus it clearly refers to the kingdom of Rome, which came “out of Greece” since [the Kittim referred to by Balaam, which means, as explained above, Rome] were of his sons [i.e., Javan’s,284Genesis 10:4. who is the ancestor of the Greeks], and it is that kingdom [Rome] which removed the continual burnt-offering304Ibid., Verse 11. [through destroying the Second Temple]. Therefore [Daniel] calls both of them [Greece and Rome] one beast, this being the rough he-goat,300Ibid., Verse 21. one of whose [four] horns waxed great303Ibid., Verse 9. and removed the continual burnt-offering.304Ibid., Verse 11. There are further such proofs there [in the Book of Daniel, that the fourth kingdom means the Romans]; however the tradition of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, [that the “fourth beast” is the kingdom of Rome] is true [in its own right] and needs no other support.
Tur HaArokh
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.