Comentário sobre Números 32:43

ומקנה רב היה לבני ראובן, And the members of the tribe of Reuven had a great amount of cattle, etc. The Torah had to give us this information in order to justify their request to settle in the lands which used to belong to Sichon and Og. The Torah simply testifies that their claim was based on solid facts. The reason that these two tribes had so much more cattle than the other tribes was that the soldiers of these tribes were exceedingly brave and captured more loot than the soldiers of the other tribes.

ומקנה רב היה לבני ראובן ולבני גד, “and the tribes of Reuven and Gad possessed large amounts of livestock.” The tribe who was a descendant of Leah is mentioned first although the tribe of Gad was the instigator of this request (Ibn Ezra).

Kap. 32. V. 1. ומקנה רב. Der Akzentuation zufolge scheint das Prädikat עצום מאוד sich auf die בני גד zu beziehen, so dass deren Herdebesitz noch weit größer, als der der Reubeniten war. Ohnehin bemerkt schon Ramban, dass nur hier einleitend der Stamm Reuben als der ältere zuerst genannt wird, in der ganzen folgenden Versammlung stehen die Söhne Gad voran. Sie werden auch Dewarim 33, 20 u. 31 als die eigentlichen Anreger der Idee und zugleich in ihrer Tapferkeit geschildert, die ihnen die Ausführbarkeit dieser Idee, sich außer Zusammenhang mit dem Gros der Nation in besonderen Grenzen niederzulassen, ratsam erscheinen lassen durfte.

'ומקנה רב היה לבני ראובן וגו, “and The Reubenites possessed large quantities of livestock;” the tribes of Reuven and Gad, who possessed more wealth than the others grew to love their material possessions and this is what encouraged them to separate from their brethren, the other tribes to the extent that they wanted to make their residence on the east bank of the river Jordan. A look at history will show us that these tribes were the first to be exiled from their land. Both they and half of the tribe of Menashe who had also taken up residence on the east bank of that river (Compare Chronicles I 5,26.) [They were exiled in 740 B.C. about 20 years earlier than the tribes that had split from the Davidic dynasty on the west bank of the Jordan. Ed.] Psalms 75,7-8 refers to this event when the psalmist says: כי לא ממוצא וממערב ולא ממדבר הרים כי אלוקים שפט זה ישפיל וזה ירים, “for neither from his point of departure , motza, from birth, (the constellation governing that date) nor from the east or west, (geographical position) or from the wilderness or mountains (is man’s fate determined) for G–d is it who gives judgment. He lifts up or brings down.” In other words, man’s travails and planning are not what determines his success or failure in matters concerning material wealth. Rabbi Acha is on record as saying that every time the word הרים, “mountains” appears in the Bible it is to be understand literally, except in this verse in Psalms when the author uses it as a metaphor, for describing man’s status among his fellow man, i.e. his wealth. Man must not boast of his wealth as it may be here today and gone tomorrow. It is G–d Who has given him wealth, and it is He Who will deprive him of it when He sees fit to do so. What is the reason why in the Hebrew language physical possessions are referred to as נכסים, “chattels?” Because these “possessions,” have a way of moving from one “owner” to another “owner.” The same is true for the word זוז which describes coins in the Hebrew language, a word derived from the root which means: ”to move.” The same is true of the word ממון meaning “money,” i.e. something being constantly counted. It is also called מעות, reminding us that it is being used to deceive people, to falsify. Another quote on this subject is provided by Rabbi Abba, who draws our attention to the prayer of Channah in Samuel I 2,7: ה' מוריד ומעשיר, משפיל אף מרומם, “It is (only) the Lord Who makes poor and rich, He casts down and He also lifts high.” Even though He elevates a person, this does not have to be at the expense of casting down another person, as He can do it to the same person.” The Torah had described how each soldier enriched himself during the campaign against Midian. Although G–d brought disaster upon Midian, the Israelites were enriched. The same happened in Egypt when the plagues G–d had brought upon the Egyptians ended up by enriching the Jewish slaves. All this happened simultaneously. Our sages said that G–d gave mankind three gifts. They are: חכמה, גבורה , and עושר, “wisdom, physical strength and bravery, as well as material wealth. Whoever is endowed with either one of these gifts has actually been endowed with all three of them. How is this line to be understood? As long as these gifts are the result of studying the Torah and being G–d fearing. Unless these endowments are the product of the above, they are useless in the end. This is why the prophet Jeremiah has said in Jeremiah 9,22: אל יתהלל חכם בחכמתו ואל יתהלל הגבור בגבורתו, ואל יתהלל העשיר בעשרו כי אם בזאת יתהלל המתהלל השכל וידוע אותי כי אני ה' כל עושה חסד חסד משפט וצדקה בארץ, “let not the wise boast about his wisdom, let not the strong boast about his strength; let not the rich glory in his riches; but only in this should one glory (if at all) in his earnest devotion to Me. For I the Lord act with kindness, Justice, and equity in the world.” (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah on this portion) I have also heard an explanation on this verse along the lines of a statement in the Talmud, tractate Niddah folio 16: there is one angel by the name of laylah, who is in charge of everything connected with conception; he presents every drop of human semen to the Lord and asking Him whether the ovum this drop will fertilise shall be endowed with wisdom, or foolhardiness, with physical strength or weakness, with wealth or poverty. He does not ask if the human being that will be born from this drop of semen will be a wicked person or a righteous person, as this is something that G–d has abstained from interfering with. It is the basis of the whole freedom, i.e. “image of G–d,” G–d has given to man as opposed to the angels and the animals, not to mention inert parts of the universe. The three outstanding examples of the endowments called “wisdom, physical strength and material wealth,” i.e. the wealthy Korach and the wealthy Haman, were symbols of the latter, one Jewish one non Jewish, who came to a totally disastrous end, each after having boasted of enormous admiration amongst his supporters. They had both displayed what we call wisdom, and instead of this helping them, it led them to an early and ignoble death. They had not been endowed with their wealth from G–d, but had acquired it by immoral means. Solomon, in Kohelet 5,12, refers to this when he said that “riches hoarded by their owners lead to their misfortune.” (Compare Tanchuma 5 and Bamidbar rabbah 22,7 on our verse on this subject.

AND THE CHILDREN OF GAD AND THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN CAME AND SPOKE UNTO MOSES. In the preceding verse Scripture mentioned the children of Reuben first, [saying], Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle, as is the correct way [of referring to them], for he [Reuben] was the firstborn and he was the son of the principal wife [of Jacob, i.e., Leah, whereas Gad was the son of Leah’s handmaid, Zilpah]. Similarly also when Scripture tells of [the occurrence of] this event it says, And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I gave etc.¹¹⁸Deuteronomy 3:16. However, in the whole of this section He mentions the children of Gad first, because it was they who suggested this idea, and it was they who first spoke to Moses about this inheritance; and they were also stronger than the children of Reuben, as it is said [of the Gadites], and he teareth the arm, yea, the crown of the head,¹¹⁹Ibid., 33:20. and therefore they were not afraid of living alone amongst the inhabitants of that land. Now Moses suspected that they were only suggesting this [plan of settling on the east side of the Jordan] because they were afraid of the people in the land of Canaan, concerning whom the spies had said, We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we¹²⁰Above, 13:31. — therefore he told them that they did not trust in G-d, just like their fathers [who did not trust in Him] and therefore He would again punish them like their fathers, by leaving them in the wilderness.¹²¹Further, Verse 15. Therefore they answered him: “Far be it from us to fear them! For we shall pass over [the Jordan] armed for battle, and we shall be the most eager and the first amongst the people to fight against the enemies of the Eternal, for they are bread for us.”¹²²Above, 14:9.

ויאמרו אל משה ואל אלעזר ואל נשיאי העדה, and they said to Moses, to Eleazar, and to the princes of the congregation, etc. We need to know why they were not content to speak to Moses alone; if there was no need for them to address also Eleazar and the princes in the matter there was also no need for the Torah to report this. Perhaps the reason was simply that they had noted that when the general legislation about distributing the land of Canaan was made public in Numbers 34,17-18, Eleazar and Joshua as well as the princes were present. Also the daughters of Tzelofchod had made certain that Moses, Eleazar, and the princes were present when they presented their claim (27,2). In order for this distribution to be valid and not subject to complaints at a later date, it had to be confirmed by the king, i.e. Moses (and subsequently Joshua), by the High Priest, i.e. Eleazar, and by the lay leaders, i.e. the princes. Each one of these leaders possessed an exclusive authority. Maimonides wrote in chapter four section ten of his treatise Hilchot Melachim that when a (Jewish) king conquers a country the whole country becomes legally his, and he can dispose of it to his servants as he sees fit. This shows that the king has overriding authority. As far as the princes are concerned, they enter the picture when the king wants to share out to every one of his people a fair share of the spoils. In such a situation all the representatives of the people, i.e. the princes, need to be present and arrive at an agreed formula at the time the shares are handed out. The function of the High Priest was to inform the people where their respective shares were located. In other words, the king might have decreed for everyone to receive 100 acres of land but did not say who was to get which parcel of 100 acres. You will note that each one of these three authorities had to contribute his opinion in order for the distribution to take place without friction. Furthermore, inasmuch as the function of the king could only be fulfilled after he had conquered the land and the people were settled therein but not at the beginning of the whole process of conquest, it certainly would not have been sufficient for the tribes of Reuven and Gad to submit their claim only to Moses for his adjudication. The word לאמור may mean that the princes were to convey the claim of Gad and Reuven to the people at large in order to secure their approval also. Alternatively, the word emphasises that their claim was presented in "soft language," i.e. אמירה; they were not aggressive in the manner in which they presented their request.

ויבואו בני גד ובני ראובן, :”The Children of Gad and the Children of Reuven came, etc. In the preceding verse where the background to the quest of the tribes has been described, the tribe of Reuben is mentioned ahead of the tribe of Gad. Why did the Torah switch the order here? On the one hand, Reuven was the descendant of Yaakov’s major wife Leah, whereas Gad was the son of one of the handmaidens. On the other hand, it was the Children of Gad who had conceived the whole idea of settling on the east bank of the Jordan. Not only that, we know from Yaakov’s blessings in Genesis 49,19 as well as from Moses’ blessing of Gad in Deut. 33,20, that this tribe was militant and fearless. Their members did not consider that their relative isolation on the east bank from the other tribes would pose security problems for them.

ויבאו בני גד, “The members of tribe of Gad etc. came; the reason why the members of the tribe of Gad were mentioned ahead of the tribe of Reuven, the senior tribe of their army group, is that it was they who had come up with the idea of remaining on the east bank of the Jordan permanently. (Ibn Ezra)

עטרות ודיבון וגו׳ ATOROTH AND DIBON etc. — These belonged to the land of Sihon and Og.

עטרות ודיבון, each one offers good grazing land.

עטרות ודיבון, "Attarot and Divon, etc." Why did they have to spell out all the names of the cities they claimed for themselves as an inheritance? Why did they not simply say: "the land which G'd smote, etc.?" Or, they could have detailed districts as described in 32,1 i.e. ארץ יעזר ואת ארץ גלעד? Furthermore, What need was there for them to say הארץ אשר הכה השם? Were there then any other lands which G'd had smitten? Who would not have known which lands the tribes of Reuven and Gad referred to?

They were part of the land of Sichon and Og. For afterwards it is written (v. 4), “The land that Hashem struck down…” meaning [the land of] Sichon and Og whom Yisroel defeated, taking their land, as it is detailed in Parshas Chukas (Ch. 21). Alternatively, because it is written (v. 33), “Moshe gave to them, to the tribe of Gad… the empire of Sichon, king of the Emorites and the empire of Og, king of the Bashan” and writing afterwards (v. 34), “The sons of Gad built up Divon and Ataros…” mentioning all of the cities that are written here. Thus, we see that they were part of the land of Sichon and Og, not the cities of Midian that were written before.

The fact is that these tribes were astute enough to present their claims in a manner which would not expose them to any objections. Theoretically, there could have been several objections. 1) Seeing that the lands in question had been conquered by the people as a whole, by what right did two tribes claim all of it for themselves? 2) How could these two tribes even have imagined that they would be allowed to live securely in a land which had already been conquered whereas the other tribes would have to face war in order to secure their heritage? Why wouldn't every other tribe want to be awarded the territory the tribe of Gad and Reuven were interested in, claiming that they too had no desire to endanger themselves in the forthcoming battle against the Canaanites? Moreover, these two tribes exposed themselves to the taunt that they had chosen to live outside the boundaries of the Holy Land!

The tribes Reuven and Gad were therefore careful to word their intial request with a view to neutralising the objections which we have just listed. They incorporated the answers to the three objections we described in their opening statement. This is why they mentioned both Attarot, etc. as well as "the land which G'd has smitten." Concerning the argument that the lands of Sichon and Og had been conquered by all the tribes, they replied that these lands had not been conquered by natural means but that G'd had smitten those kings, so that the claim of the other tribes to have waged a battle for these lands simply did not stand up to examination. As a result of Divine intervention these lands were G'd's to allocate and their claim did not interfere with the rights of the other tribes.

As to the second argument that the other tribes would have to endanger themselves while the tribes of Reuven and Gad were "sitting pretty," they said that such an argument would only be sound if the Israelites had to conquer the Canaanites by their own effort. Seeing that it was G'd who would fight on their behalf, the conquest of Canaan would proceed on the same lines as that of the lands of Sichon and Og. The other tribes would therefore not be in greater danger than they had been when the lands of Sichon and Og were conquered. Moses himself is on record in Deut. 3,21 as saying: "I have commanded Joshua at that time telling him: 'you have seen with your own eyes all that G'd has done to the two kings of the Emorites; He will do the same to all the kingdoms on the other side to which you will cross.'" In view of this assurance, Reuven and Gad felt that the other tribes had no argument that they were being abandoned and would have to face danger all by themselves.

These two tribes also countered the argument that they were placing themselves outside the Holy Land by residing on the East Bank of the Jordan river, pointing out that G'd had extended His protection to the Israelites to help them conquer these lands. Maimonides writes as follows in chapter one of his treatise on Trumot and Maasrot. "The land of Israel comprises every place which has been conquered by a Jewish king or prophet provided such a conquest had met with the approval of most of the nation. However, if an individual Israelite or even a whole tribe had made war on their neighbours and conquered their territory or part of it, such lands would not be considered as part of the Holy Land even if the territory in question had been part of the land promised by G'd to Abraham." Thus far Maimonides on the subject. He wrote further -in connection with the territories captured by king David,- "why were these lands not considered as on the same level of holiness as the land of Israel? Because David conquered these territories before Israel had conquered all the parts of the land of Canaan which G'd had commanded Joshua to conquer." The basis of the הלכה that also lands outside the boundaries of what we call ארץ ישראל proper will be incorporated halachically is found in Sifri at the end of Parshat Eykev. It is based on Deut. 11,24: "every place that the ball of your foot will step on will remain yours." Seeing that conquest and possession of the land of Israel proper and its boundaries have been mentioned in Joshua chapter five, it is clear that the subject of this verse are lands outside the areas which constitute ארץ ישראל proper. Sifri explains that the reason this verse becomes operative only after the Israelites had dispossessed all the Canaanites within ארץ ישראל proper is so as not to transfer remnants of the impurities and abominations which the Israelites tolerated within their boundaries to newly captured territory. Thus far Sifri on the subject. It is clear from all this that if it had not been for the delay of hundreds of years in expelling or liquidating local inhabitants such as the Jebusite in Jerusalem, for instance, any land conquered by a majority of Israelites would have become incorporated as part of ארץ ישראל proper for all time. At any rate, the tribes Reuven and Gad referred to the territory they wished to settle in as equal in sanctity to that yet to be conquered seeing that G'd had smitten the kings and armies of those lands.

As far as a statement in the Sifri that territory conquered on the East Bank of the Jordan prior to the conquest of the lands on the West Bank does not enjoy the status of sanctity enjoyed by the lands on the West Bank is concerned, and that therefore the lands chosen for themselves by these tribes were not part of the "Holy Land," these tribes countered that this situation was exceptional in view of the fact that G'd had smitten these kings in contrast to their having been conquered by human effort. Hence the sanctity of the land of Israel did apply also to these lands. They were able to quote Moses himself who had stated in Deut. 2,31 that G'd had said to him (not to Joshua) "behold I have begun to deliver up Sichon and his land before you; begin to possess the land." In Deut. 3,2 G'd gave similar instructions to Moses concerning Og and his lands. All of this was proof that G'd had approved the early conquest of these lands. There was also good logic to support such a view as otherwise we would have dealt with two separate conquests, that of lands outside the boundaries of the Holy Land, and that of the West Bank. If this had been the case, the same accusation could have been levelled against the Israelites including Moses at the time that were levelled against David who conquered Aram Tzovah before bothering to conquer Jerusalem. [this is part of the Sifri, although somewhat difficult to confirm from Biblical sources. In fact, Samuel II chapter 9 and 10 both seem to indicate that Jerusalem had been captured previously. Whereas we are told in chapter 8 that David captured ארם צובה, he brought the prisoners to Jerusalem. How could he have done so without capturing Jerusalem first? Ed.] In our situation, the capture of the lands of Sichon and Og were a necessary prerequisite to the conquest of the West Bank. The Israelites had even requested passage to the West Bank through the lands of Sichon and Og but the latter had refused so that there was no other alternative. Conquest of those lands could not be compared to conquest of Aram Tzovah prior to the conquest of Jerusalem then.

Having mentioned all this we now understand why these two tribes spelled out the names of all the cities they were interested in. They wanted to show Moses that the only territory they were asking for was the territory which G'd had smitten. They claimed that all the places mentioned enjoyed the status of sanctity which applies to the Holy Land.

ארץ מקנה היא ולעבדיך מקנה. "It is a land suitable for cattle and your servants possesss cattle." With these words they wanted to forestall another objection. Even after Moses would have agreed to the justice of their claim, the other tribes would all be able to make the same claim based on the same arguments. This is why they had to point out that none of the other tribes had as many heads of cattle as they did.

ויאמרו…יתן את הארץ הזאת, They said:…"may this land be given to us." The word ויאמרו is necessary here although nobody had interrupted the spokesmen of the tribes of Gad and Reuven as yet. The Torah wanted to show by interposing this word that only now did these spokesmen address themselves to the real reason why they wanted just these lands. They did not say to Moses: תתן, "give," but יותן, "may it be given." The reason they formulated the request thus was because they were aware that it was not within Moses' authority alone to grant their wish, as we have already explained. They may have given Moses the option to allocate the land to them single-handedly seeing he was the king, or after consulting with Eleazar and the princes.

V. 5. ויאמרו. Diese wiederholte Aufnahme der Anrede setzt eine Pause voraus und zeigt, dass sie selbst nicht ganz frei von dem Bedenken waren, wie ihr Antrag aufgenommen werden würde. Sie bedurften einer Pause, um sich zur Fortsetzung des Vorbringens ihres Anliegens zu sammeln.

אל תעברנו את הירדן, "do not make us cross the Jordan." Baba Batra 109 explains the meaning of the word העבר as being similar to the same word in Numbers 27,8: והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו, "you will transfer his inheritance to his daughter." It means that the daughter transfers the inheritance from its original place. The two tribes implied that if Moses were not to grant their request he would in fact transfer their rightful inheritance from its proper place.

They also intended to remove from themselves the suspicion that they chose this land in order to live more tranquilly and not enter the land of their enemies. This is why they explained that the reason they saw no point in crossing the Jordan was only that they did not stake a claim to any part of the land across the river. They were not motivated by a desire to escape their duty to take part in the war of conquest.

They even implied that the fact that they would not cross the Jordan enabled all the other tribes to each receive larger slices of land than they would have received if they had to parcel it out amongst 12 tribes.

It is also possible that they meant that no useful purpose would be served by their crossing the Jordan seeing G'd would do the fighting that had to be done anyway.

האחיכם SHALL YOUR BRETHREN — This denotes a question. (i.e., the ה prefixed is the interrogative particle).

?האחיכם יבאו למלחמה; Did you really think that your brethren are going to war in order to make conquests

<b<span>ויאמר משה…האחיכם יבואו למלחמה…ולמה תניאון, Moses said: "are your brethren going to go into battle, …and why do you turn away the heart, etc.?" Moses understood full well all that the tribes of Gad and Reuven had in mind with their words, in accordance with what we have explained. However, he advanced counter arguments. Moses addressed the argument that the lands really belonged to G'd to do with as He saw fit, and that the other tribes had not established a claim to these lands. He also responded to the argument that in the future too G'd would do the fighting so that their participation was irrelevant. He told them that it was quite true that G'd would do the fighting, but the army of the Israelites had to be present and prepared to do battle. He did not say האחיכם ילחמו, "are your brethren to do battle?," but he said האחיכם יבאו למלחמה, "are your brethren going to be present in order to do battle?" He could not understand that these two tribes were not willing to be present at the time when the Israelites would conquer the West Bank. Moses accused the two tribes of contradicting themselves as they were well aware that even though G'd had done the fighting which resulted in the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og, nonetheless it had involved the soldiers in great fatigue. The same would occur in the future. By what right did they think they could shirk their duty to undergo this fatigue also? They were behaving like parasites collecting the reward for the fatigue suffered by the other tribes. This is why he asked them: ואתם תשבו פה? "and you are going to sit here?

?ואתם תשבו פה, while you are settled here on land that we have already conquered? Surely you did not think for a moment that you could get away with such an arrangement! Your suggestion therefore can only have the effect of undermining the morale of your brethren!

Another aspect which Moses alluded to when he asked: "are you going to sit here?" (while the conquest of the West Bank will take place), was the fact that when these lands of Sichon and Og were conquered all the tribes were present, and their combined merit helped to ensure that G'd did all the fighting. If they were now going to remain behind, only ten tribes would cross the Jordan and their combined merit would be smaller, possibly with the result that also G'd's input into the battle would be smaller. Moses effectively demolished the arguments which the two tribes had advanced for wanting to stay behind on the East Bank.

ולמה תניאון means AND WHY WILL YE TURN ASIDE AND WITHHOLD their heart from passing over? — because they will think that you are afraid to pass over on account of the prospect of war and the strength of the cities and the peoples.

?ולמה תניאון, what is the point in your undermining the resolution and morale of your brethren? You are repeating what the spies in the last generation did!

ולמה הניאון "and why do you turn the minds, etc.?" Moses said that in addition to his objective arguments he also had a subjective, psychological argument aginst the proposal of these two tribes. How would their action be perceived by their comrades-in -arms? Moses conceded that the arguments of the two tribes may have been sincere, however the effect of such arguments would result in a lowering of the morale of the other tribes. These tribes might consider that the two tribes hid their fear of the Canaanites behind these arguments. Once the other tribes had the feeling that Reuven and Gad were afraid, what was to stop those tribes from becoming afraid also? Fear was what had resulted in the debacle 38 years earlier. Moses accused the two tribes of not considering the effect their attitude would have since Israel had experience in the matter. At that time ten men had succeeded in infecting a whole nation with their own fear when they said that the Canaanites were stronger than they were (Numbers 13,31). As soon as the people would observe that part of their number did not want to cross the Jordan they would have prepared the ground for a repetition of what happened at the time of the spies.

V. 7. נוא ,ולמה תניאון bezeichnet ja das Unterbrechen einer Bewegung (es steht zwischen נוע und נוח — siehe Bereschit). Hier steht es in seiner eigentlichen Bedeutung. Sie und Israel sind im Begriff, in das Land einzuziehen. Da halten sie mit einemmale in Ausführung dieser Absicht inne und bringen auch das Volk dazu, die Ausführung aufzugeben. Dieser doppelte Vorwurf ist durch das קרי und כתיב ausgedrückt.

Why do you dishearten. This refers to a sinful thought between them and their Father in Heaven. About them, Yisroel will say that it is not because of the livestock that they want this, but rather that they are afraid of the war with Canaan, or they do not want to be subject to Hashem’s strong supervision in Eretz Yisroel.

?ולמה תנואון, “and to what purpose do you want to turn away (the hearts)?” This word is read as we spelled it, but is spelled as a transitive word, the letter י appearing in the text instead of the letter ו, before the last letter.

אשר נתן להם השם "which the Lord has given to them?" Here too, Moses referred to the argument of the two tribes that G'd had defeated Sichon and Og and that it was only up to Him to decide who would inherit these lands. He pointed out that there was a basic difference between the status of the lands they wanted and the status of the West Bank. G'd had given the West Bank to the whole Jewish people already in the days of the Patriarchs, something that was not the case with the lands which used to belong to Sichon and Og. Those lands were not included in G'd's promise to Abraham. Sifri section 2 item 299 quotes a Baraitha and writes as follows: "the words לתת לך (Deut. 7,13) "to give to you," exclude the East Bank of the Jordan which you took for yourself." Whereas this interpretation of that verse is only that of Rabbi Shimon while another scholar interprets these words differently, there is no reason to believe that any of the other scholars disagree with Rabbi Shimon on that subject.

We also find a statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 7 that the East Bank of the Jordan is not a suitable place to erect the Temple, nor for the שכינה to settle. We have scriptural proof of this from Joshua 22,19, where it says that "if the land of your inheritance has become defiled (in your eyes i.e. the East Bank of the Jordan), cross over to the land of inheritance of G'd Himself, who dwells there in the Tabernacle and acquire an inheritance amongst us, etc." This tells you very clearly that there is a difference between the lands of Sichon and Og and that of ארץ ישראל proper. Perhaps this is the reason why Moses did not want to give each one of the tribes a share in those lands, and why he preferred that all of the tribes should accept their heritage on the West Bank which is holier. Compare what we have written on Deut. 3,13 on the words ההוא יקרא ארץ רפאים.

מקדש ברנע FROM KADESH-BARNEA — this was its name. There were two places called Kadesh (therefore this one is distinguished from the other by being called Kadesh-Barnea).

There were two places named Kadeish. Meaning that when it writes Kadeish Barnei’a you should not say that it was named Kadeish and its ruler was called Barnei’a, as with Elonei Mamre (Bereishis 13:18) where the owner of the plain was called Mamre. Therefore, Rashi explains, “This was its name” and Kadeish Barnei’a was the name of that place. But since elsewhere (24:14, 33:37) Kadeish is mentioned alone, Rashi therefore explains that there were two places named Kadeish.

VV. 11 u. 12. מלאו אחרי ד׳ ,לא מלאו אחרי (siehe Kap. 14, 24). Das mangelnde Dagesch bedarf der Erklärung. Vielleicht bezeichnet es V. 11 den hohen Grad der von ihnen unerfüllt gebliebenen Pflichttreue. Nicht nur nicht im פיעל, nicht einmal im קל kann man von ihnen sagen, dass: מלאו אחרי. Im Gegensatz dazu heißt es denn auch von Kaleb und Josua, dass מלאו אחרי. Die Würdigkeit, ins Land zu kommen, setzt eben keinen hohen Grad der Pflichttreue voraus.

הקנזי [CALEB THE SON OF JEPHUNNEH] THE KENEZITE — He (Caleb) was the stepson of Kenaz (and therefore he is termed here the Kenezite), and Caleb's mother bore Othniel to him (to Kenaz) (and for this reason Othniel, the son of Kenaz is described in Joshua 15:17 as Caleb’s brother) (Sotah 11b).

בלתי כלב בן יפונה הקנזי, “except for Calev, son of Yephuneh the Kenizite.” Our sages (Sotah 11) derive from here that Calev was a stepson of Kenaz for whom the mother of Calev had born Othniel.

To whom Kaleiv’s mother bore Osniel. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Here it is written “Kaleiv son of Yefuneh, the Kenizite.” But if he was the son of Yefuneh then he was not the son of Kenaz, and if he was the son of Kenaz then he was not the son of Yefuneh. Furthermore, elsewhere it only writes Kaleiv son of Yefuneh. He answers that here when it is written, “Son of Yefuneh, the Kenizite” the meaning is as follows: After Yefuneh, Kaleiv’s father, died his mother married Kenaz and bore him Osniel. Thus, Kaleiv was called “son of Yefuneh” [who was his biological father] his father, and [he was also called] “the Kenizite” the name of his mother’s husband.

בלתי כלב בן יפונה, “except for Caleb son of Yephune, etc.” this line is puzzling, seeing that Yair son of Menashe also entered the Holy Land as explained by the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin folio 44 on Joshua 7,5: where the 36 men of Israel that are reported as having been slain by the men of Ai, (in the first assault) are understood by the Talmud as having been only one man, whose moral value was equivalent to that of a majority of the members of the Jewish Supreme Court which consisted of 71 elders. This man was Yair, son of Menashe. This occurred after the theft by Achan ben Karmi of the loot from the city of Jericho, which had not been brought to the attention of the court although his family members were aware of this. We may have to answer the above query by assuming that the decree that all the men who had left the land of Egypt who had been subject to the decree of dying in the desert as a result of the debacle with the spies did not include any who had been under twenty years at the time. [Since the Torah described Joseph as having held great-grandchildren on his knees before he died at the age of 110, and more than 86 years elapsed after the death of the last of Joseph’s brothers until the Exodus, many of whom died much older than he, it is hard to believe that Yair, at the time of the Exodus, had not reached the age of twenty. Ed.]

בלתי כלב בן יפונה, ”except for Calev, son of Y’funeh.” If you were to say that also Yair, son of Menashe entered the Holy Land (crossed the Jordan) and was killed during the siege on Ai, together with 35 comrades in arms (Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, folio 44) (according to Joshua 7,8) we have to answer that the decree concerning who would not be allowed to enter the Holy Land did not apply to people under the age of twenty at the time it was decreed, nor did it apply to people over the age of fifty, as neither category would have been drafted into military service, so that the spies’ refusal to undertake a campaign against the Canaanites would not have affected them personally.

וינעם means, AND HE MOVED THEM ABOUT; the word is of the same root as נע in (Genesis 4:12) “a wanderer (נע) and a vagabond”.

לספות is similar in meaning to the verbs in (Isaiah 29:1): “add (ספו) year to year”; ( 7:21): “add (ספו) your burnt-offerings” — an expression denoting adding (The translation is: to add even more to the Lord’s fierce anger against Israel).

V. 14. קמתם תחת אבתיכם, mit eurem jetzigen Antrag tretet ihr an die Stelle eurer Väter und setzet deren Pflichtvergessenheit fort. Ihr bewährt euch als תרבות אנשים חטאים, als die von sündigen Leuten Erzogenen (siehe Bereschit 1, 28).

להניחו, “he will again leave you;” the letter ח in this word was exchanged from the original letter ע; we have proof of this in verse 13 in the word ויניעם, “He made them wander.” The word להניחו in this verse means that failure of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to reconsider will extend the length of their whole generation in exile in the desert, which includes constantly having to move. If the two tribes were to decline to settle in the west bank, history would likely repeat itself, and another generation would not get to see the promised Land. There are commentators who understand the word להניחו, as “to abandon it;” this would be analogous to Psalms 119,121: בל תניחני לעושקי, “do not abandon me to those who would wrong me.”

נבנה למקננו פה WE WILL BUILD [SHEEP FOLDS] FOR OUR CATTLE HERE — They paid more regard to their property than to their sons and daughters, because they mentioned their cattle before their children. Moses said to them, “Not so! Make the chief thing the chief thing and what is subordinate subordinate. First build cities for your little ones and afterwards enclosures for your flocks” (cf. v. 24) (Midrash Tanchuma, Matot 7).

ויגשו אליו, They approached him, etc. The reason the Torah writes "they approached," seeing they were already standing before Moses, Eleazar and the princes may be to show that in view of Moses' reaction that they were no better than the generation of the spies they had felt rebuffed. The Torah therefore had to describe them as "approaching" when they continued their palaver.

They were more concerned over their property. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Moshe change [what they said] and say, “Build for yourselves cities for your children and enclosures for your sheep” (v. 24)? He answers that it was because “they were more concerned…”

V. 16. גדרת צאן נבנה למקננו וגו׳. Das Wort der Weisen im מ ר lässt uns an der Gedankenfolge dieses Vortrags der Söhne Gad und Reuben die überwiegende Besitzesliebe erkennen, die überhaupt ja dem ganzen Anliegen zu Grunde lag. Ihre Herden lagen ihnen mehr am Herzen als ihre Kinder, darum erst גדרת צאן למקננו und dann ערים לטפנו, sonst hätten sie ja wohl auch schon um ihrer Kinder willen sich zweimal bedacht, ehe sie sich der anlockenden Weidegegend willen der Gefahr aussetzten, ihren geistigen Zusammenhang mit dem Nationalganzen und dessen Heiligtum durch Entfernung zu gefährden. In Mosche Erwiderung (V. 24) stellt sich die Fürsorge für die Kinder in den Vordergrund und haben sie dies sehr wohl aufgefasst. V. 26 lassen sie in ihrem Schlusswort den Kindern und Frauen den Vorrang, vor ihrem Viehstand. Es ist ihnen auch, wie das Wort der Weisen weiter bemerkt, diese Überschätzung des materiellen Güterreichtums nicht gut bekommen. Wie sie vorzeitig zum Besitz gegriffen, waren sie auch die ersten, die Besitz und Heimat verloren. Sie gingen zuerst durch Pul und Tiglath Pileßer ins Exil (Chron. I. 5, 26).

Alternatively, after hearing what Moses had to say they realised that it depended on their actions if their wish would be granted or not. They therefore felt the need to approach him even more closely in order to convince Moses of their sincerity. They realised now that their original words had not convinced Moses.

גדרות צאן נבנה למקננו, we will build sheepfolds for our cattle, etc. Why did they have to make this statement altogether? All they had to do was to give Moses the kind of answer which would demonstrate that he had suspected them unjustly, namely that they would form the vanguard of the soldiers entering the land of Canaan (verses 17-18). We may be able to explain their statement with the help of what Maimonides has written in chapter eleven of his treatise Hilchot Mechirah. He wrote: "if someone sells his house to a neighbour or he gives it to him as a present on condition that the recipient go to Jerusalem with him on a certain day and the recipient meanwhile occupies the house in question he has acquired it as soon as he goes to Jerusalem with the former owner on the date agreed. If, however, the formula of the sale or gift was as follows: "if you go to Jerusalem with me on a certain day I will sell you or give you my house, and the other party did go to Jerusalem with him on the day in question, he does not own the house even if he had moved in in the meantime, as the deal was what is called an אסמכתא, the first party not having expected to have to make good on the deal as he expected the second party not to be able to meet the condition in question. Thus far Maimonides. In chapter one of the same treatise Maimonides writes: "What constitutes proper possession through occupancy? If he sold him a house, a field, or he gave it to him as a gift, the recipient must make some kind of improvement in the property under discussion in addition to mere occupancy in order for the transaction to be complete, (irreversible)." Thus far the wording of Maimonides.

The two tribes of Gad and Reuven were astute enough to appreciate the הלכות pertaining to the acquisition of permanent ownership. This is why they told Moses that seeing that their receiving these lands was conditional on their fulfilling Moses' terms, they would first demonstrate ownership of these lands by erecting sheepfolds, i.e. making the kinds of improvement which established their חזקה, undisputed ownership. The "cities for our children," were also meant to demonstrate their ownership.

You may ask that they could have done all this without making a public announcement about it beforehand as there is no halachic necessity to publicise these improvements. However, Maimonides also wrote in the chapter we quoted: "when are such improvements proof of the new owner's intention?, When he made them in the presence of the previous owner. If the new owner made these improvements without the previous owner being aware of it, then he has not made a valid acquisition until the previous owner has told him: 'go ahead and make symbolic improvement as a sign that you have acquired this property.'" The two tribes announced what they were going to do in order to elicit Moses' consent. This is why Moses said to them in verse 24: "build for yourselves cities for your children and sheepfolds for your sheep, etc." This was the equivalent of the formula Maimonides mentioned.

Nachmanides and his colleagues disagree with Maimonides in the matter of אסמכתא and hold that as long as fulfilment of conditions attached to the sale must be performed only by the buyer, the principle of אסמכתא is not involved and as soon as the buyer has fulfilled the relevant conditions the sale is closed. In order for the statement of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to make sense according to that opinion, the tribes mentioned the building of the sheepfolds and cities to tell Moses that until they had completed this they were not prepared to join the other tribes and cross the Jordan with them.

ואנחנו נחלץ חשים means, AND WE SHALL ARM OURSELVES SPEEDILY, the last word being the same as in (Isaiah 8:3): “the spoil hasteth, the prey speedeth (חש)” and in (Isaiah 5:19), “Let Him make haste, let Him speed."

עד אשר אם הביאונום “as long as we have not brought them, etc.” The construction is similar to Proverbs 8,26 עד לא עשה ארץ ןחוצות, “while G’d had not yet made earth nor its attributes.” We also find something similar in Genesis 24,19 עד אם כלו, “until they have finished.”

וישב טפנו בערי המבצר, "while our children will dwell in the fortified cities." This comment had to appear here and not previously when the two tribes mentioned the building of cities for their children (and women). They wanted to make it plain that once they could feel reassured about the safety of their families they could volunteer to add another undertaking, i.e. not to return to their own families until all the other tribes had taken over their respective inheritance. The time frame under discussion was 14 years, 7 years of conquest and another seven years for the distribution of the various lands. The two tribes made it plain that unless they left their families in a condition which made it unnecessary for them to worry they would only be with the other tribes during the seven years of conquest. This was why the Torah inserted these words in the middle of this verse although the statement נחלץ חושים should really have been followed immediately by verse 18.

חושים, speedy. Compare Psalms 55,9 אחישה מפלט לי, “I would find a refuge speedily.”

When we are with our brothers. For otherwise, why would they tell Moshe what would happen [later]?

V. 17. ”אוץ“ ,”עוש“ ,”חוש“ ,”חשים“ nach etwas hindrängen, eilen.

Before Bnei Yisroel. This removed Moshe’s first complaint against them: How will Bnei Yisroel have the heart to go to war if we remain across the Yardein. The second claim was removed as well: Yisroel will say we are afraid and do not rely on Hashem’s supervision. On the contrary, at the time we go armed before them, our children will dwell in fortified cities — This is proof that we are not afraid to leave our children behind and we rely on Hashem’s protection. Without Hashem’s individualized supervision, fortified cities offer no benefit, for there will be no one to wage battle in them.

ואנחנו חלץ חושים, “we will be ready armed to act as vanguard;” These tribes promised, after first having settled their families and livestock, not only to fight along the other tribes but to do so in the most exposed positions. They would be able to do so, precisely because they would not be encumbered by their families and livestock.

לפני בני ישראל BEFORE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL - i.e. at the head of the troops, because they were mighty men; for thus is it said of Gad, (Deuteronomy 30:20): “He teareth the arm, with the crown of the head”. Moses distinctly stated this to them in Sedrah אלה הדברים (Deuteronomy 3:18): “And I commanded you at that time … Ye shall pass over armed before the children of Israel, all ye men of valour”. And regarding the siege of Jericho it is written, (Joshua 6:13): “And the armed men (החלוץ) went before them”— this refers to the tribes of Reuben and Gad who thus fulfilled the conditions they had laid down.

Which we shall build now. Since those that were built previously were destroyed during the war.

The consideration about these tribes remaining with the main body of the Israelite army until after the distribution of the land also explains something which otherwise appears as contradictory. On the one hand they had said they would join and bear arms (verse 18) until התנחל, the other tribes would inherit; on the other hand they said in the earlier verse that they would participate until הביאותם אל מקומם, "until we have brought them to their place." If you accept our interpretation both statements make sense and are in place.

לפני בני ישראל, they would lead the fight on behalf of the people just as they also had taken the lead in settling their families.

וישב טפנו AND OUR LITTLE ONES SHALL STAY, so long as we are with our brethren waging war,

Moses added the word לכם when he encouraged the two tribes to build cities, etc. in verse 24 to show that he agreed with the purpose of their building the cities for their families' safety. In fact, this is what the two tribes did as we know from verse 34-38. The fact is that the soldiers of these tribes did not return to their homes until 14 years later.

בערי המבצר IN THE FORTIFIED CITIES which we will now build (cf. v. 16 with v. 36).

We will not return. The other tribes could still have a claim against us—that we received our hereditary property before them—because during the years of dividing the Land they will not be able to do anything for the sake of their portion, and yet we have already chosen ours. Therefore, we promise that we will not return to our homes until after the division.

מעבר לירדן וגו׳ ON THE SIDE OF THE JORDAN AND YONDER — i.e., on the western side.

FOR OUR INHERITANCE HAS COME TO US — “we have already received it on the eastern side [of the Jordan].” This is Rashi’s language. But it would not be correct for them to speak in this manner in front of Moses, saying, “we have already received it,” for it was not up to them, but on his will that the matter depended, and they did not receive it until he [decided to] give it to them. Instead, [the explanation of their words is that] they said to Moses: “For you do not have to give us an inheritance with them, thereby making their inheritance in their good Land smaller, for an inheritance which is suitable for us has come to us, since it is a land [fit] for cattle, and we have more cattle than the other tribes.” This they said in the nature of a request, not by way of contention. Or perhaps they said: “For we will not inherit with them, because even if you do not want to give us the land [on the east side of the Jordan] now, we will cross over together with them [the rest of the children of Israel], we and all that we have, but we will not inherit with them, for we will return to this land which is the inheritance that is suitable for us, and which we want, and which none of the other tribes want at all.”

כי לא ננחל אתם, "for we will not inherit with them, etc." They added this as the reason why they would wait until the other tribes had received their inheritance before returning themselves. They wanted to make it plain that they had excluded themselves from an inheritance on the West Bank. Alternatively, they wanted to demonstrate that the fact that they had chosen to remain on the East Bank had nothing to do with their being afraid to face the Canaanites as Moses had implied. Their reason was simply that they had already received their heritage.

כי באה נחלתינו אלינו, ”for our inheritance has already come to us.” According to Rashi they meant that they already considered their share on the east bank as a fait accomplit, as an irreversible fact. Nachmanides argues that it would be most inappropriate for these tribes to speak in such terms in Moses’ presence, as it had only been promised to them conditionally. What they said was that they did not plan to inherit with the other tribes on the west bank and to thereby reduce the size of the other tribes’ inheritance, seeing that they had already received their allocation on the east bank. They phrased all this as a request, pointing out that since they owned more cattle than the other tribes this would be appropriate as the land on the east bank was admirably suited for grazing cattle.

On the western [bank]. Rashi was answering the question: Their inheritance was also across the Yardein, so why did they say, “We do not want to take possession…”? Therefore, Rashi explains that “across the Yardein” means the western [bank], meaning that they did not take land on the western side, only on the eastern [bank], as it is written afterwards, “For our inheritance came to us to the east…”

כי באה נחלתנו FOR OUR INHERITANCE HAS COME [TO US] — This means: by that time we shall have already received it on the eastern side.

ויאמר להם משה אם תעשו, Moses said to them: "if you will do, etc." Why did Moses have to say "if you will do" before saying "if you will arm yourselves, etc.?" In fact all Moses would have had to do was to give Joshua the instructions recorded in verses 27-30. Furthermore, why did Moses emphasise the word הזה? What did Moses have in mind when he said לפני השם, in the presence of the Lord?"

Presumably Moses realised that what the tribes of Reuven and Gad had undertaken was only in order to secure for themselves the lands which they had requested. Their motivation was not to help their brethren because of a feeling of mutual responsibility, but it was purely functional. This is not a good moral basis for insuring success in war. The motivation of the troops should be that when going to war they went to war against the enemies of the Lord, to kill these enemies of the Lord so that the war qualified as a מלחמת מצוה, "a holy war." In Hilchot Melachim chapter 7 Maimonides describes this war in these words: "anyone who fights with all his heart…intending to sanctify the holy name of G'd thereby can feel confident that he will not come to harm and that he will have earned his share in the hereafter."

There was reason to fear then that these two tribes would suffer casualties in their encounter with the Canaanites unless their whole motivation would undergo a change. This is what Moses alluded to when he said אם תעשון before speaking about the fighting men of these two tribes arming themselves. The words הדבר הזה and לפני השם assume a new dimension when we consider that these two tribes had to dedicate themselves to G'd's purpose for the forthcoming war. When Moses concluded his speech by saying עד הורישו את איביו מפניו, "until He has driven out His enemies before Him," he referred to G'd's enemies. We must not translate this verse as speaking about the enemies of Israel. Moses had never mentioned the word Israel once during these negotiations. Clearly, what was at stake was to avenge the behaviour of the Canaanites against G'd. In view of the repeated use of the conjunctive letter ו throughout the verses 21-24 it was difficult to establish which condition Moses considered paramount. Now we have become aware that the critical words are the words לפני השם.

Another point which Moses had in mind when he said אם תחלצו לפני השם, was to correct these two tribes who had said נחלץ חשים לפני בני ישראל, "we will be ready, armed, before the children of Israel." This had implied that the other tribes were in need of physical support, support in order to conquer the land of The Canaanites by natural means. Moses corrected them saying that their success depended on increasing their spiritual merit. The combined merits of 100 people are noticeably less than the combined merit of 101 people.

ועבר לכם כל חלוץ, "if every armed man of you will cross, etc." Why was Moses not satisfied with what he had said in the previous verse אם תחלצו? Moses made the inheritance of the tribes Reuven and Gad conditional on every man of arms-bearing age crossing the Jordan to take part in the battles against the 31 kings. Still, the question remains why Moses did not add the word כל, in the previous verse when he said אם תחלצו?

Moses' words have to be understood as follows: אם תעשון..וער לכם כל חלוץ, "if all of your able-bodied men will cross none of you will come to any harm." He implied that if only a part of the able-bodied men of these two tribes would participate in the wars of conquest they were liable to sustain casualties. The word ועבר is not to be understood as a condition but rather as a promise; "if all of your able-bodied men participate you will not have to fight but merely to cross the Jordan and G'd will do all the fighting. Such whole-hearted participation will be considered as לפני השם, there will no longer be a "curtain" dividing between you and G'd. Compare Isaiah 59,2: "your iniquities are the barrier between yourselves and your G'd." The "barrier" is made up out of Samael and the forces at his command.

Moses advisedly concludes by saying that G'd will drive out His enemies from "before Him" instead of "from before you," to hint that G'd alone will do the fighting if the two tribes were to fulfil these conditions.

ונכבשה הארץ, "and the land will be conquered, etc." Why did these words have to be written after we heard at the end of the last verse that G'd will drive out His enemies before Him? Furthermore, why did Moses have to mention once more: "and after that you will return?" We already understood from the context that after the other tribes had been settled the tribes of Reuven and Gad would return to their families on the East Bank. Actually, Moses wanted to tell the two tribes that as a result of their keeping their bargain a number of promises would be fulfilled. 1) The land would be subdued; 2) every one of them would return home whole in body and in spirit. Although we have been told in Baba Batra 121 that Yair the son of Menashe was killed in the fighting against the town of Ai, he belonged to the other half of the tribe of Menashe who had chosen the Left Bank as their rightful heritage. He was not amongst the people whom Moses addressed in our paragraph.

V. 22. והייתם נקיים מד׳ ומישראל (vergl. Bereschit 24, 41). והיית נקי מאלתי, אז תנקה מאלתי der mir geleistete Eid wird dir nichts mehr anhaben können, du wirst von ihm aus keine Verpflichtung mehr haben, du hast ihm genügt. So auch hier: Gott und Israel werden keine Forderung weiter an euch haben.

Moses also made a point of stating that these two tribes would have discharged their duties both vis-a-vis G'd and vis-a vis Israel as long as they crossed the Jordan prepared to do battle. The important thing was their motivation, as we have pointed out previously. As long as what they did was לשם שמים rather than for their own selfish motives even the people (10 tribes) would not harbour any bad feelings against these two tribes. Moses added the words: "this land will become your inheritance before G'd," that their participation in helping the other tribes to conquer and to settle on the West Bank would make their own lands safe against intruders.

It is possible that by repeating the expression לפני השם, "in the presence of G'd," Moses meant to say that although their land was חוצה לארץ, "outside the boundaries of the Holy Land proper," they would be considered as if they had made their residence within the Holy Land. The land would be considered holy as no strip of secular land separated between it and ארץ ישראל proper.

'הנה חטאתם לה, by your failure to live up to your undertaking it will become clear that you had sinful intent from the beginning.. הנה חטאתם לה', by your failure to live up to your undertaking it will become clear that you had sinful intent from the beginning.

ואם לא חעשון כן הנה חטאתם, "But if you will not do so, behold you have sinned against the Lord, etc." This appears problematical. We would have expected Moses to say only that if these two tribes did not keep the bargain they would not be given the lands on the East Bank. However, the meaning of these words is that if the two tribes would not accept Moses' command to treat the conquest of the West Bank as a מלחמת חובה, an obligatory war fought in order to take revenge on the enemies of G'd, they would have sinned even if they did cross the Jordan fully armed. Moses spoke of that sin in the past tense, i.e. "your sin would commence already at this time."

V. 23. חטאתכם אשר תמצא, die Sünde trifft in ihren Folgen den Sünder. Außer dem, dass sie das transjordanische Land nicht bekommen, wenn sie die Bedingung nicht lösen (V. 30), trifft sie dann auch wegen Wortbrüchigkeit die Schuld.

ודעו חטאתכם אשר תמצא אתכם. "and be aware that your sins will find you out." Moses warned that at the appropriate time when they would find themselves in imminent danger G'd would exact retribution from the guilty, i.e. they would fall in battle. Remember what Tur Orach Chayim chapter 54 writes that in a war of expansion soldiers are sent home if they have been guilty only of speaking needlessly between such parts of the morning prayers as ישתבח and יוצר אור. Moses warned now that all the promises he had made concerning these soldiers returning home unharmed would be null and void unless they kept to all the details of his conditions. If they failed to do this they would not be free either in the eyes of G'd or the people. The very fact that they had sustained casualties would be proof of their being guilty. Compare what I have written on the words עבדיך יעשו כאשר אדני מצוה in verse 25.

לצנאכם FOR YOUR SHEEP — This word is from the noun form which is found in (Psalms 8:8): “Sheep (צנה) and oxen, all of them”, where, too, there is no א intervening between the נ and the צ. The א which here comes after the נ is in place of the ה of צנה (and לצנאכם is not the same form as לצאנכם with an inversion of the א and נ). I learned this from the work of R. Moses the Preacher.

והיוצא מפיכם תעשו, "and do that which your mouths have uttered." Moses wanted them to understand that the permission he had granted for these tribes to build cities for their women and children etc., was not absolute but was conditional on their fulfilling the part of full participation with the other tribes in their conquest of the land of Canaan. It is also possible that Moses referred to the gratuitous offer by the two tribes to stay with the main body not only for seven years but for fourteen years until they had all been settled provided they were allowed to build fortified cities for their families. This is why he added the letter ו before the word והיוצא מפיכם, "and what your mouths have uttered." Having made an undertaking which Moses had not asked of them, they were to be held to it as it had been entirely voluntary. Moses made it plain that as far as his own conditions were concerned he had only obligated them to remain with the main body for seven years. Anything over and beyond that were conditions they had imposed upon themselves.

Conjugated from צנה. Rashi was answering the question: Why is the [letter] nun punctuated with a patach, surely throughout Scripture it is punctuated with a sheva.

V. 24. לצנאכם wie לצאנכם, so auch צנֶה (Ps. 8, 8). Vielleicht ist das Wort verlängert, um länger dabei verweilen zu können und damit zu sagen: eure Schafe, auf welche ihr einen so übergroßen Nachdruck legt. Ohnehin dürfte die Umwandlung von צאן in צנא und צנה eine demselben Sinn entsprechende Steigerung des Begriffs enthalten. צאן ist verwandt mit ”שאן“ und bezeichnet das künstlich zu schützende, zu hürdende Tier (siehe Schmot 21, 37), ”צנא“ und ”צנה“, verwandt mit “צגע” und “צנח”, bezeichnet das noch intensivere Bergen (siehe zu V. 16).

והיצא מפיכם תעשו AND DO THAT WHICH HATH GONE OUT FROM YOUR MOUTH, as a vow to the Most High God (cf. Numbers 30:3), because you have taken it upon yourselves to pass over for war until the end of the subjugation and division of the land; — for Moses asked of them only, (v. 22): “Let [the land] be subdued and afterwards ye may return”, but they undertook, (v. 18): “[we will not return to our houses] until [the children of Israel] have inherited”, so you see that they made an additional promise, to stay on the western side the seven years during which they were dividing the land. And so, indeed, they did (cf. Joshua XXII.).

For the sake of Heaven. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why is it written here, “What you have expressed verbally you must fulfill”? This is the terminology used for a vow, where it is written “in accordance with all that he expresses verbally he shall do” (Bamidbar 30:3). [Therefore Rashi] explains [that it is considered a vow] for the law is that speech with regards to heaven is treated like an act of acquisition with regard to a person [i.e., only with regard to heaven does speech have a binding effect]. R. Yaakov Triosh.

Dieser auf Bedingungen beruhende Vertrag mit den Söhnen Gad und Reuben ist für die jüdische Rechtstheorie das klassische Beispiel für die bündigste Form eines auf Bedingung zu stellenden Aktes. Die daran nachgewiesenen Erfordernisse sind: a) תנאי כפול, es müssen die beiden Fälle der erfüllten und nichterfüllten Bedingung, wie hier אם יעברו וגו׳ und ואם לא יעברו וגו׳ ausdrücklich ausgesprochen sein und nicht der bloßen selbstverstandenen Folgerung, מכלל הן אתה שומע לאו und umgekehrt, überlassen bleiben; b) תנאי קודם למעשה, es muss die Bedingung dem daran geknüpften Faktum vorangehen: אם יעברו ונתתם ואם לא יעברו ונאחזו und nicht umgekehrt תתנו אם יעברו (Nach רמב׳׳ם Ischot VI, 4 bezieht sich diese Forderung nicht auf die Formel, sondern auf den Vollziehungsakt, dass nicht der Akt erst vollzogen und die Bedingung nachgefügt werde.) c) הן קודם ללאו, dass der bejahende Fall dem verneinenden vorangehe, erst אם יעברן und dann ואם לא יעברו; d) תנאי בדבר אחד ומעשה בדבר אחר, es muss die Bedingung in ihrer Erfüllung nichts das daran geknüpfte Faktum Aufhebendes enthalten, also nicht z. B. אם תחוירי לי את הנייר הרי זה גיטיך; e) אפשר לקיומיה על יד שליח das auf Bedingung zu stellende Faktum muss, wie hier die Landesverteilung durch Josua, auch eventuell durch einen Stellvertreter vollzogen werden können, nicht aber wie z. B. der חליצה-Akt, ein nur persönlich zu vollziehender sein (Kiduschin 61 a, Gittin 75 a u. b und Ketuboth 74a) כל תנאי, heißt es Kiduschin daselbst שאינו בתנאי בני גד ובני ראובן אינו תנאי, jede Bedingungsformel, die dieser Aufforderung nicht entspricht, ist folgelos, die Bedingung ist wie nicht ausgesprochen und das Faktum tritt bedingungslos in Kraft, התנאי בטל והמעשה קיים. Ob überall, speziell für welche Gesetzestitel und Fälle diese Norm Anwendung habe, ist jedoch sehr kontrovers (siehe insbesondere die Kommentatoren zu Gittin daselbst). Jedenfalls gibt es Fälle, wo beim Vollzuge einer Handlung die bedingende, der Handlung nur eine bedingungsweise Geltung ,גילוי מלתא , erteilende Absicht ohne formellen Ausspruch nur angedeutet zu werden braucht ja Fälle, wo die bedingenden Umstände so selbstverständlich klar und entschieden sind, dass es nicht einmal einer besonderen Andeutung der bedingenden Absicht braucht, דאפי׳ גילוי מלתא לא בעי (siehe תוספו׳ קידושין b 49, ד׳׳ה דברים שבלב).

And they did so. Meaning that you should not question how he knew that they pledged to do this, for in the Book of Yehoshua (ch. 22) it is written that they did so, they remained until they had inherited the land. Hear from this that this was what they pledged.

ויאמר בני גד AND THE CHILDREN OF GAD SAID, all of them as one man (ויאמר is the singular form of the verb, whilst the subject בגי גד is the plural; cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:2 s. v.).

עבדיך יעשו, the part of the condition which involves our being the vanguard we will most certainly fulfill.

ויאמר בני גד…עבדיך יעשו The tribe of Gad….said: "your servants will do, etc." One difficulty in this verse is the word לאמור. Whom was Moses to tell of their decision? 2) What did they add that they had not previously told Moses in verse 18 already? They themselves had volunteered to do what Moses now demanded of them! 3) Having already said generally: "your servants will do what my lord commands," why did they have to add verses 26 and 27 altogether? 4) Why did they repeat once more: "as my lord has said (verse 27)? Why did the Torah refer to מצוה "commands" in verse 25 whereas in verse 27 it uses the word דבר, "has said?"

ויאמר בני גד ובני ראובן, ”the Children of Gad and the Children of Reuven said, etc.:” The Torah did not use the plural mode ויאמרו, “they said,” as one spokesman for both tribes did the talking.

All of them as one man. Rashi was answering the question: Why is it written ויאמר [lit. "and he said"] in the singular form? There were many Gadites. He did not wish to explain like Ba’al HaTurim that their leader spoke for all of them, apparently because they were two tribes and thus they had two leaders who were able to speak, each one for his own tribe. R. Yaakov Triosh.

The tribe of Gad said. [It uses the singular verb] because after Moshe added a big condition—that they should not leave any armed man on the eastern side of the Yardein—they did not immediately decide. First, they assembled and came to the decision to accept Moshe’s condition. At that time, they appointed a new leader, since they were now split off from the rest of the tribes, and they were now to begin their settlement. After they appointed a leader, he went to Moshe and the Sanhedrin and spoke on behalf of all of them.

Once you consider that I have explained that Moses stressed to these tribes after their undertaking that the motivation for their joining the war was what mattered foremost, the reply of these two tribes is easy to understand. According to Bamidbar Rabbah on our paragraph Moses also had corrected them when he altered the order of priorities regarding the building of cities and sheepfolds to take care of the children first and not of the livestock as they had indicated in verse 16. There had been two new elements in Moses' speech to them, and they responded positively on both counts. They commenced with that which had been mentioned last, i.e. the concern for their children, by listing their children, wives, and livestock in the appropriate order this time. They followed this up by stressing that all of them were going to cross the Jordan as a vanguard in the presence of the Lord, to show that they were aware of the crucial dimension of their purpose of fighting the enemies of G'd. They refrained from repeating that they would be in the forefront of "the children of Israel" as they had said in verse 17.

We have a rule that in matters involving money one must abide by the terms set even if the person setting the condition is a layman; they wanted to go on record, that in this instance they would have abided by any condition Moses would set inasmch as he was their prophet, leader, etc. G'd had commanded the Israelites to heed everything the prophet would tell them (Deut. 18.15). This is what they had in mind with their first reaction הנה עבדיך יעשו כאשר אדני מצוה. In other words, they now stressed that their motivation in doing what they had undertaken to do was to display their obedience to the command of Moses in his capacity as the prophet. This is why they added כאשר אדני דבר, "as my lord says." The word לאמר too was meant to indicate their awareness of their obligation to do what Moses "said" even if he had not promised them that they would receive their share of the inheritance on the East Bank as a reward for abiding by the conditions he had set for them.

They meant to stress that even if Moses had not phrased his suggestions as a condition but had merely said so, לאמור without embodying his suggestions in the form of a binding contract, they would have taken him at his word and would have complied with his wishes. After all, one is in the habit of honouring financial agreements even if they are made only orally and do not involve the decree issued by a mutually recognised expert in the matter.

Our children, wives. One might have thought they would be afraid to leave their children and wives on the eastern side of the Yardein without any protection. Rather, they would take them with them until they returned. Therefore, they reiterated and explained that their trust in Hashem was so complete that they would leave their wives and children [even though all the armed men would cross over].

כאשר אדוני דובר , “as my lord speaks.” In verse 31 the formulation is “as the Lord (Hashem) has spoken to your servants so we shall do.” It is clear from these two verses that the Torah wants to equate the authority of Moses with the authority of the Lord. Moses was the kind of instrument for Holy Spirit which functioned around the clock; one was not to think that during certain hours of the day Moses was not on G’d’s “wavelength,’ and that his pronouncements during such times did not have the same validity as when he was inspired. He was always inspired. This is also what our sages (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 27) pointed out in connection with Exodus 33,7: “so it was whenever someone sought Hashem he would go out (outside the camp where Moses had pitched his personal tent) etc.” The Torah does not write that the individual in question went out to seek out Moses but that he went out to seek Hashem. This proves that the people equated what Moses would tell them with what they expected to be told by G’d. The “glue” is called by the substance it is glued to. In other words, seeing that Moses was as if “glued” to Hashem, he himself is sometimes described as if he were Hashem. Our author quotes a number of verses illustrating this in his commentary on Exodus 33,7.

כל חלוץ צבא, “every man that is armed for war.” Apparently, the author’s version of the text had the vowel kametz under the letter ח instead of the vowel patach. His commentary presupposes this. As in our editions we have the vowel chataf patach, we need not bother copying his commentary.

. ויצו להם AND HE GAVE CHARGE — This is the same as, and he gave charge concerning them. The words imply: and to watch over the fulfilment of the agreement they had made he appointed Eleazar and Joshua. The use of the ל in להם here is the same as in (Exodus 14:14): “The Lord will fight לכם for you."

ויצו להם, Moses now commanded not to give to these two tribes the lands of Sichon and Og until they would return from conquest of the lands on the west bank of the river Jordan. This is the meaning of verse 22. The two tribes did not accept this arrangement and said נחנו נעבור חלוצים (verse 32) on condition that אתנו אחזת נחלתנו, that simultaneously we will be in possession of our ancestral inheritance. As soon as we shall cross the river Jordan these lands will be legally ours!

Like עליהם [concerning them]. This command was in the sense of appointing, as Rashi subsequently writes, thus the word להם ["to them"] is inappropriate, rather it should have said עליהם ["concerning them"]. Therefore Rashi says “like עליהם.” Since they were only appointed based on certain conditions, he adds “and their stipulation.” He says that we find the word להם ["to" or "for you"] meaning “concerning you” as in “Hashem will fight for you” which means עליכם ["concerning you"] as if to say “on your behalf.”

[AND MOSES SAID UNTO THEM]: ‘IF THE CHILDREN OF GAD AND THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN WILL PASS WITH YOU etc. THEN YE [Joshua and the princes] SHALL GIVE THEM THE LAND OF GILEAD FOR A POSSESSION.’ The reason for this [command that then ye shall give them …] is that Moses did not give them now all the land of Sihon and Og, but only a few cities in the land of Gilead which was a place fit for cattle, namely Ataroth, and Dibon, etc.¹²³Verse 3 here. and those mentioned here,¹²⁴Further, Verses 34-38. in which they built fortifications to settle their children and cattle therein, but the rest of the land they left waste. Therefore [Moses] commanded Joshua and the princes: “If they will pass over [the Jordan] with you, you shall give them all the land as a perpetual inheritance. But if they will not want to pass over with you,¹²⁵Verse 30. you should take away from them all this land and drive out from it their wives and children, and give them an inheritance fitting for them in the land of Canaan, which they shall conquer for themselves when they cross over [the Jordan].” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “But if they will not pass over¹²⁵Verse 30. of their own free will, you shall take them with you against their will, and they shall take their possession there [in the land of Canaan] together with you.”

ויאמר משה…ונתתם להם, Moses said:…"and then you will give to them, etc." The reason Moses had to say: "and you will give to them," was that it should be perceived that it was the other tribes who had given these lands to the tribes of Gad and Reuven although we will be reading in verse 33 that "Moses gave to the tribes of Gad, Reuven and half the tribe of Menashe the kingdom of Sichon and the kingdom of Og, etc." What Moses handed over became an absolute possession only after the tribes involved had completed their undertaking. We need to examine why Moses said: ונתתם להם instead of: תתנו להם, the more acceptable form of the future tense. Perhaps Moses wanted to indicate by the use of a form involving the letter ו at the beginning that the very whole-hearted participation in the conquest by these two tribes was what would make the campaign successful so that the ten tribes themselves owed their inheritance to that participation of the tribes Gad and Reuven. Had Moses written תתנו להם, we would not have surmised his meaning from that word.

אם יעברו... ונתתם, “if they will cross, etc.,….then you will give.” Nachmanides sees in this verse a clear indication that at this time Moses did not give these two tribes all the land they had requested, except the cities that were required to accommodate their families during the period that their fighting men marched with the main body of the Jewish people. These were the towns that are mentioned here by name. The two tribes fortified those towns before moving with the balance of the people cross the Jordan. The rest of the land on the east bank they left as desolate land. This is why Joshua and the elders told them that if they would fulfill their undertaking to Moses they would also receive the areas not yet distributed (Joshua 1,12-16) Ibn Ezra explains on verse 30 that the implied meaning of the verse is that if these two tribes were not going to cross voluntarily with the main body, they would be compelled to do so against their will. As a result of such an eventuality they would receive their ancestral share on the west bank.

ואם לא יעברו חלוצים אתכם, "But if they will not cross with you, armed, etc." The emphasis in this verse is on the words אתכם, "with you," i.e. at the same time as you. If these two tribes were to decide to join you later and help in the conquest they would already have forfeited their claim to special consideration on the East Bank. The reason the Torah wrote ונאחזו בתוככם, "and they will have possessions amongst you," with the added letter ו at the beginning of the word ונאחזו instead of writing יאחזו, "they will receive a possession," is to point out that in such an event they have forfeited their success in this part of the land and they will automatically only inherit their share on the West Bank. They will have failed to perform the מצוה they took upon themselves and therefore will not have attained what they aimed for.

Then they shall take possession among you in the land of Canaan. Only in the land of Canaan, but they will receive no portion at all on the eastern side of the Yardein. This is the plain meaning of the text. However, the Talmud explains that “among you” is on the eastern side of the Yardein as well as in the land of Canaan. The Sages derived this because Scripture does not simply say, “Then they shall take possession in the land of Canaan.” The phrase “among you” comes to include the land across the Yardein (Kiddushin 61).

AND THE CHILDREN OF GAD AND THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN ANSWERED, SAYING: [AS THE ETERNAL HATH SAID UNTO THY SERVANTS, SO WILL WE DO]. 32. WE WILL PASS OVER ARMED. They said to Moses: “Our lord need not command us with a double condition¹²⁶If they will pass over the Jordan … then ye shall give them the land of Gilead … But if they will not pass over, they shall have possessions among you (Verses 29-30). [to cross over the Jordan]. Far be it from your servants to transgress that which my lord commands! For they [i.e., your words] are the words of G-d, and we will not transgress His commandment!” And this is the meaning of the expression, as the Eternal hath said, for at the beginning [i.e., before Moses had made the double condition] they had [already] said that they would do as my lord commanded¹²⁷Above, Verse 25. [hence we must say that here in Verse 31 they were telling Moses there was no need for the double condition, for the reason explained above].

-32. ויענו בני גד, The members of Gad etc. replied: The Torah had to repeat matters once more and also could not simply write: ויאמרו, "they said," but had to write: "they replied." Seeing that Moses had said ונתתם, the two and a half tribes had begun to fear that such a handing over would only commence at the end of the fourteen years of their whole-hearted participation. This is why they described their forthcoming participation as so firmly anchored in an unbreakable agreement that although their part of the fulfilment of the agreement was some time in the future, the rewards for abiding by it accrued to them as an immediate benefit, i.e. the land was to be given to them as of now. This is why they said: ואתנו נחלתנו, "the possession of our inheritance will remain with us." They had not properly understood Moses' words, as we have explained them. As a result, Moses gave them the land immediately to prevent any misunderstandings.

It is also possible that initially even Moses had not meant for the two and a half tribes to actually acquire their claim until after they had demonstrated fulfilment of their part of the bargain. However, once Moses realised how firmly these two and a half tribes had committed themselves to helping the other tribes he agreed to give them possession of these lands immediately.

ואתנו אחזת נחלתנו AND LET POSSESSION OF OUR INHERITANCE BE WITH US [ON THIS SIDE OF THE JORDAN] — it is as much as to say: (ואתנו) in our hands and in our ownership let the possession of our inheritance be on this side.

ויענו בני גד ובני ראובן לאמור, וגו, The Children of Gad and 'the Children of Reuven responded by saying:” נחנו נעבור חלוצים, “we are going to cross as the vanguard.” Nachmanides understands the two tribes as saying to Moses that there was no need to spell out what would happen if they did not cross the Jordan, etc.; not only would they do so but they would be in the forefront of the fighting men. Seeing that Moses’ instructions were G’d’s words, it was unthinkable that they should not accept His command. Note that originally, (verse 25) they had promised to do what Moses would command, and now they rephrase this saying they would do what G’d had commanded.

In our possession will be… Rashi wishes to answer the question: When it wrote ואתנו אחוזת נחלתנו מעבר לירדן [lit. "and with us, our permanent inheritance on this side of the Yardein"] to the east, this implies that they took the land with them, but this is impossible. He also has a further difficulty as to why is it written מעבר לירדן [lit. "on the other side of the Yardein"]? Surely they took their inheritance on this side. [In answering] Rashi adds the word “will be” because the statement, “In our hands, in our possession our hereditary territory” might imply that the hereditary territory was already in their hands. Therefore Rashi adds the word “will be” because they had not yet taken this territory, and would only do so after the fulfillment of the conditions. Consequently, they meant that their inheritance would come to them after the fulfillment of the conditions, as if they had said that after the fulfillment of the conditions they would no longer request to take possession across the Yardein and beyond. For they would have received their inheritance on the eastern side of the Yardein, retroactive to the time before they crossed, once they had fulfilled the conditions, given that they had already made an acquisition of their inheritance by building pens for sheep and flocks, and [building] cities for the children and settling within them.

V. 32. ואתנו אחזת נחלתנו. Es heißt dies wohl: die Besitznahme unseres diesseitigen Erbes geht mit uns hinüber, d. h. nicht diesseits können wir diese Besitznahme vollziehen, sondern mit dem, was wir jenseits des Jardens leisten, verwirklichen wir die Besitznahme des von uns verlangten diesseitigen Landes.

V’LACHATZI (AND UNTO A PART OF THE) TRIBE OF MENASHEH THE SON OF JOSEPH. At the beginning the tribe of Menasheh did not come to Moses [to ask for their inheritance to be on the east side of the Jordan], but when Moses apportioned the land to the two tribes [of Gad and Reuben], he saw that the land was larger than they required, and therefore he asked for people who were prepared to take their inheritance with them. And there were people of the tribe of Menasheh who wanted that land — perhaps they were [also] owners of cattle — and therefore he gave them their portion [in that land].
Now the meaning of v’lachatzi [literally “and unto the half”] is “unto one part” of them [as will be explained]. Similarly, Then were the people of Israel divided “lacheitzi’ (into two parts): ‘chatzi’ (part of) the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king, ‘v’hachatzi’ (and the other part)followed Omri.¹²⁸I Kings 16:21. And the explanation [here is as follows]: The children of Menasheh consisted of eight paternal families as is written in the section dealing with the census,¹²⁹Above, 26:29-32. and [only] the families of the Machirites and of the Gileadites took their inheritance in this land [on the east of the Jordan], because they were men of valor and they conquered it for themselves, and Moses gave them a large part of it. The [other] six families, however, crossed over the Jordan [to take their inheritance in Canaan proper], as it is written in [the Book of] Joshua, And the lot was for the rest of the children of Menasheh according to their families; for the children of Abiezer, and for the children of Helek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida.¹³⁰Joshua 17:2. And this is the meaning of what is written there, And there fell ten parts to Menasheh, beside the land of Gilead and Bashan, which is beyond the Jordan,¹³¹Ibid., Verse 5. the interpretation thereof being as follows: They divided the [whole] Land into nine equal parts¹³²As Ramban explained at length above, 26:54. for the nine tribes, but they could not give to the remaining [part of the] tribe of Menasheh a whole portion [because two of their families had settled on the east side of the Jordan], nor could they give them [only] half a portion, because most of them had remained [in the land of Canaan]. Therefore they divided the whole tribe into parts and they found that only a tenth¹³³Ramban is thus saying that in calculating their population they found that the two families on the east of the Jordan constituted one-eleventh of the total population of Menasheh, and the remainder consisted of ten-elevenths. The one-eleventh part of the whole is expressed as “one tenth,” because after separating it from the whole, it is one-tenth of the remainder. Thus out of the total inheritance given to the whole tribe of Menasheh, ten-elevenths were allotted to the families that settled in the Land of Israel proper — they are the ten parts referred to in Joshua 17:5 — while the remaining eleventh part was assigned to the families of Menasheh on the east side of the Jordan. of [the total population of] the tribe took their inheritance in the land of Bashan [on the east side of the Jordan] and ten parts remained [and settled in the Land of Israel]. These were then given ten parts¹³¹Ibid., Verse 5. [of the amount] given to a whole tribe,¹³³Ramban is thus saying that in calculating their population they found that the two families on the east of the Jordan constituted one-eleventh of the total population of Menasheh, and the remainder consisted of ten-elevenths. The one-eleventh part of the whole is expressed as “one tenth,” because after separating it from the whole, it is one-tenth of the remainder. Thus out of the total inheritance given to the whole tribe of Menasheh, ten-elevenths were allotted to the families that settled in the Land of Israel proper — they are the ten parts referred to in Joshua 17:5 — while the remaining eleventh part was assigned to the families of Menasheh on the east side of the Jordan. while one part remained [on the east side of the Jordan for the families of the Machirites and the Gileadites]. Perhaps it was because these two families — the Machirites and the Gileadites — were the smallest of their tribe [and would therefore have received only a small portion of the land allotted to their tribe] that they wanted to separate themselves from their tribe, in order that they should have a greater inheritance [proportionally] than the rest of them, for they could conquer it by their sword, as it is said, because he [Machir] was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan.¹³⁴Joshua 17:1. This is why Scripture mentioned ‘parts’ with reference to this tribe [of Menasheh, saying, And there fell ten ‘parts’ to Menasheh,¹³¹Ibid., Verse 5. a term] which it does not use in connection with any of the other tribes. This appears to me to be the explanation of this verse [And there fell ten parts …] according to the simple meaning of Scripture.
Now Moses did not mention in the Torah that he [Joshua] was to apportion this land amongst them [the tribes of Gad and Reuben], giving each one of these two tribes his own portion, but instead Scripture says [in Verse 33] that he [Moses] promised them and the part of the tribe of Menasheh the kingdoms of these two kings [Sihon and Og]; and in the Book of Deuteronomy he explained that he gave the part of the tribe of Menasheh a portion for itself, all the region of Argob, and all the Bashan.¹³⁵Deuteronomy 3:13. Likewise we can deduce [although it is not stated so clearly] that Moses assigned the rest of the land of Sihon and Og between the tribes of Reuben and Gad. Thus the Torah dealt briefly [with this matter], because He did not want to mention therein the [details of the] allocation of the land between these two [tribes], just as the allocation amongst the other tribes is also not mentioned. But in the Book of Joshua it is clearly stated that Moses gave them their [specific] portions, as it is written, And Moses gave unto the tribe of the children of Reuben according to their families. And their border was etc.,¹³⁶Joshua 13:15-16. and it is further written, And Moses gave unto the tribe of Gad, according to their families. And their border was etc.,¹³⁷Ibid., Verses 24-25. and again it says, And Moses gave inheritance unto part of the tribe of Menasheh; and it was for the part-tribe of the children of Menasheh according to their families. And their border was etc.¹³⁸Ibid., Verses 29-30.

ויתן להם משה, only because he did not want to get involved in a serious quarrel with these two tribes.

ולחצי שבט מנשה, ”and for half the tribe of Menashe;” Nachmanides writes that originally, the members of that tribe had not requested that any of their ancestral share should be on the east bank. When the tribe saw that this whole huge chunk of land had been allocated to only two tribes, and that it was far more than these two tribes could expect to populate adequately so that a call went out for anyone interested to join them in settling that part of the land, some people of the tribe of Menashe expressed their willingness to do so. Possibly, these members of the tribe of Menashe were also herdsmen and owned substantial amounts of sheep and cattle. The meaning of the words ולחצי שבט מנשה therefore is not to be taken literally, as only two of the families of the tribe of Menashe are reported as living in that area, [eight families are mentioned including Tzelofchod. Ed.] The two families that were interested were that of Machir and that of Gilead. Between them they accounted for far fewer than half the tribe of 52000 fighting men at last count. The land and who it was shared out to, is mentioned only in summary form here, whereas in the Book of Joshua, chapter 13, more details are provided.

V. 33. ויתן להם משה וגו׳. Es sind die Motive und Veranlassungen nicht mitgeteilt, welche zu diesem Anschluss des halben Stammes Menasse an die transjordanische Niederlassung geführt. רמב ן vermutet, dass sich bei der Einweisung in den Besitz das Landesgebiet zu groß für die beiden Stämme ergeben und dies diesen Anschluss des halben Stammes Menasse veranlasst habe. הארץ לעריה בגבלת, er wies ihnen das Land zu und teilte es unter die Stämme nach den Städten in abgegrenzten Gebieten, es wurde bereits bestimmt, welche Städte zu Reuben, welche zu Gad und welche zu dem Gebiete des halben Stammes Menasse gehören sollen. ערי הארץ סביב alle Städte wurden nach Gebieten abgegrenzt, selbst diejenigen, welche die gegenwärtige Bevölkerung noch nicht in Wohnbesitz nehmen konnte.

And half of the tribe of Menashe etc - they did not request, as explained in the Yerushalmi Bikkurim, first chapter. Rather, Moshe is the one that requested that they have the land as it is clear from Deuteronomy 3:16.

ולחצי שבט מנשה, “and as far has half of the tribe Menashe is concerned, etc.” they had not requested to be given their ancestral heritage in the lands previously owned by Sichon and Og; but seeing it was their founding father, Joseph’s first born son who had searched the sacks of Joseph who had caused them to tear up their garments when he accused one of the brothers as having stolen his father’s goblet, they were given as compensation two sections of land on the east bank of the Jordan. (B’reshit Rabbah 84,20)

The cities within their borders. Moshe apportioned the borders according to the cities, and the fields were automatically attributed to their cities. He was not as careful that the portioning of land should be equal, in the way they were in Eretz Yisrael. He was careful, however, that the cities would be divided equally. This was because the land was very expansive for two and a half tribes.

VV. 34 — 36. ויבנו וגו׳ את דיבון וגו׳ ערי מבצר וגו׳, sie bauten die Städte aus zu Festungen für ihre Frauen und Kinder und zu Hürden für ihre Herden.

ערי מבצר וגדרת צאן FORTIFIED CITIES AND ENCLOSURES FOR SHEEP — This end of the verse is to be connected back with the beginning of the paragraph (v. 24): And the children of Gad built these cities to be fortified cities and enclosures for sheep.

To serve as fortified cities… Not that this was the reality, and the verse indicates that each of the cities mentioned were fortified and having pens for sheep, for if so, what is meant by “[the sons of Gad] built up” (v. 34) — surely they would had already been built.

ואת נבו ואת בעל מעון מוסבת שם AND NEBO AND AND BAAL-MEON, THEIR NAMES BEING CHANGED — Nebo and Baal-Meon were names of idols, and the Ammonites used to call their cities by the names of their gods. The children of Reuben therefore changed their names into other names. This is the meaning of מוסבת שם: Nebo and Baal-Meon were changed to other names.

AND NEBO, AND BAAL-MEON — THEIR NAMES BEING CHANGED. “Nebo and Baal-meon were names of idols, and the Amorites used to call their cities by the names of their idols, therefore the children of Reuben changed [the names of these cities and gave them] different names, this being the meaning of the expression their names being changed, which means that Nebo and Baal-meon were changed to other names.” This is Rashi’s language. But the [concluding part of this] verse which says, and they called their names unto the cities which they builded refers to all the cities [mentioned there], and not only to Nebo and Baal-meon [and therefore the phrase their names being changed cannot be understood as Rashi explained it]. Furthermore, what sense would there be in Scripture mentioning the cities [only] by the names of their idols, and saying that the children of Reuben built them and changed their names, without mentioning the good names which they were [now] given! And indeed it is quite usual for Scripture when speaking about [any] captured cities to mention always the new names [given them, as in the following cases]: and they called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father;¹³⁹Joshua 19:47. and he called them the hamlets of Jair;¹⁴⁰Further, Verse 41. and he called it Nobach.¹⁴¹Ibid., Verse 42. And likewise wherever the name [of a city] was changed [for any reason] Scripture mentions [the new name as well, as it is said], Now the name of Hebron beforetime was Kiryath-arba;¹⁴²Joshua 14:15. now the name of Debir beforetime was Kiryath-sepher.¹⁴³Ibid., 15:15.
The most likely explanation seems to me to be that these names [Nebo, Baal-meon, etc.] were the names of the cities when they were in the possession of Moab, and Sihon captured all these cities from the former king of Moab,¹⁴⁴Above, 21:26. for thus it is written about Heshbon, Dibon and Medeba, as it is said, We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished, even unto Dibon etc.¹⁴⁵Ibid., Verse 30. This also appears to me to be the [meaning of the] words of Jephthah, when he said, While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns, and in Aroer and its towns, and in all the cities that are along by the side of the Arnon,¹⁴⁶Judges 11:26. this being the same Aroer [mentioned here in Verse 34] which they took from Sihon. Now when Tiglath-pileser the king of Assyria¹⁴⁷II Kings 15:29. exiled the Reubenites and the Gadites, the Moabites returned and settled in their lands and cities, for we find in the Book of Jeremiah that when Nebuchadnezzar [king of Babylon] destroyed Moab, he conquered from them all these cities. And [the Book of Jeremiah] mentions by name Heshbon and Elealeh,¹⁴⁸Jeremiah 48:34. Kiryathaim,¹⁴⁹Ibid., Verse 23. Dibon and Nebo,¹⁵⁰Ibid., Verse 22. Jazer,¹⁵¹Ibid., Verse 32. Aroer,¹⁵²Ibid., Verse 19. and Baal-meon¹⁵³Of Verse 38 here. which is [there] called Beth-meon,¹⁴⁹Ibid., Verse 23. and Beth nimrah¹⁵⁴Verse 36 here. which is [there] called Nimrim,¹⁴⁸Jeremiah 48:34. and Jahza.¹⁵⁵Ibid., Verse 21. Thus you see that all these cities mentioned [in these verses] belonged [originally] to Moab, [and Sihon, king of the Amorites captured them from Moab]. Similarly in [the Book of] Isaiah most of these cities are mentioned¹⁵⁶Isaiah 15:2-9. when Sennacherib [king of Assyria] overran Moab, for he first exiled the Reubenites and the Gadites, and afterwards he overran Ammon and Moab.
Therefore it appears that the meaning of [the phrase] their names being changed is that all these cities had [previously] had their names changed, because the Amorites changed their original names when they captured them [from Moab] and these [names] were their original names which they had when they still belonged to Moab. But the children of Reuben and of Gad still called them by [these Moabite] names when they rebuilt them. [This explanation is borne out by the fact that] the verse does not say, “and they gave names to the cities which they built,” but it says, and they called by names the names of the cities [which they builded], meaning that they called them by name with the same names which they originally had [when they were still under the rule of Moab. This was] because they wanted to refer to them by the names with which they had previously been known, either in order to shame Moab, or, as our Rabbis have mentioned,¹⁵⁷In the Midrash Agadah on our verse, quoted by Rashi at the beginning of the section. Thus Rashi and Ramban still differ as to the meaning of the verse here that the names of the cities were changed. According to Rashi, the phrase their names being changed means that they were changed by the children of Reuben and Gad, because their [Amorite] names were the names of idols. According to Ramban, the phrase refers to the Amorites, who changed the original Moabite names in an attempt to erase the Moabite origin of these cities. Since the Amorites gave them the names of their idols, therefore the children of Reuben and Gad reverted to the original Moabite names in order not to have to mention the names of idols, or, as Ramban suggests, in order to shame the Moabites. because [they did not want to use the Amorite names since] the Amorites used to call their cities by the names of their idols. However, we do not find that Joshua changed the names of the cities which he captured.

ואת נבו ואת בעל מעון מוסבות שם, “and Nebo and Baal-meon, with altered names;” Rashi says that the names Nebo and Baal-meon were names of pagan deities and the members of the tribe of Reuven changed the names of these towns. Nachmanides raises the question that this is not sufficient reason to inform us of the names of these pagan deities. All the Torah had to write was that the members of the tribe of Reuven rebuilt these towns and changed their names. The names of the idolatries did not need to be revealed. It is the Torah’s custom elsewhere that when cities of pagans were captured to inform us only of the new names given to them by their captors. Furthermore, the words את שמות הערים אשר בנו “the names of the cities which they built,” are completely superfluous, as we already have been told in the first half of the verse that we are speaking of cities rebuilt by the members of the tribe of Reuven. These words therefore cannot refer to the cities of Nebo and Baal-meon. I believe therefore, that the names mentioned used to be the names of these towns while they were still part of the land of Moav, before Sichon had captured them from the first King of Moav. The members of the tribe of Reuven continued to call them by these names, as the Torah nowhere says that ויקראו שמות לערים אשר בנו, “they gave names to the cities that they had built.” The Torah only wrote: ויקראו בשמות את שמות הערים, meaning they named the cities they had built by the names they had borne previously. They wanted that these cities would be known as the cities that existed on that site originally. It is also possible that they meant to embarrass the Moabites by showing the world that these formerly Moabite cities now belonged to the Israelites.

Would name their cities after idols. Meaning that [the Reuvenites] changed the names of the cities before rebuilding them, in order not to recall the names of the idols, for Nevo and Ba’al Me’on were the names of idols, and [the Emorites] named these cities after them. Thus, the sons of Reuven changed their names, as the Rabbis teach [they were named] Beis Galiah and Beis Kariah. However, the names of the other cities were changed after rebuilding them, as is the manner of all city builders.

V. 38. מוסבת שם. Nebo und Baal Meon — beides Götternamen, — erhielten veränderte Namen, ויקראו בשמות וגו׳, im übrigen nannten auch sie die Namen der Städte, die sie ausgebaut hatten, d. h. sie behielten die alten Namen bei. Nach רמב ן wäre aber mit מוסבת שם gesagt, die Städte hätten unter der Herrschaft Sichons andere Namen erhalten, ויקראו וגו׳ die Söhne Reuben aber gaben ihnen die alten Namen wieder, die sie ursprünglich unter Moab gehabt hatten.

מוסבות שם, “their names having been changed;” originally they had been named by the Ammonites and Moabites. After being conquered by Sichon, their names were changed. When they were conquered by the Israelites their names were changed again to sound Jewish.

Their names having been changed. It is prohibited to mention the name of idols only when the name of the idol not written in the Torah (Sanhedrin 63b). Therefore, before the Torah was sealed and they did not know if the names would be mentioned in the Torah, they changed the names. Afterwards, when the Torah was sealed, they saw the names were mentioned, so they reverted back to the original names. They retained the names. They added the names of the builders to the original names, and then part of the name fell into disuse.

מוסבות שם, “their names being changed;” originally they had been known as Ammon and Moav; subsequently they became known as Sichon and Og.

ואת שבמה AND SIBMAH — i.e., they built (cf. v. 37) Sibmah also. This is identical with Sebam that is mentioned above (v. 3).

The meaning of the words ואת שבמה, is that they built that town (from scratch). This was not a town that was rebuilt.

They built Sivmah… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why did the verse not mention them together [writing] “Nevo, Ba’al Me’on and Sivmah, their names having been changed.”? Rashi answers that it was specifically Nevo and Ba’al Me’on that had their names changed, in accordance with the comment that before they were rebuilt their names were changed in order not to recall the names of idols. However, the names of the other cities were changed after having been rebuilt. Thus, “Sivmah” is associated with the word “built” (v. 37) above, but not with “their names having been changed.” Rashi says that one should not think that it is associated with “their names having been changed” because Sevam and Sivmah are one and the same.

AND SIBMAH. The meaning of this is that “they built Sibmah,” but it was not [a city] whose name was changed.

ויורש — Understand this as the Targum does “AND HE DROVE OUT”, for the expression ריש is used in two different meanings, in the sense of ירושה (the Kal), “inheriting”, and in the sense of הורשה (the Hiphil) which denotes driving away and expelling (see Rashi on Numbers 14:24).

ויתן משה את הגלעד למכיר בן מנשה, “Moses gave the Gilead to Machir son of Menashe.” The meaning, of course, is that Moses allocated the territory of Gilead to the family of Machir, Machir himself having died long before the Exodus. His offspring had conquered the Gilead and it was customary that the children called themselves by the name of the founder of their family. It is remotely possible that the original Machir had still been alive, seeing that the decree that all the men between twenty and sixty who had been alive at the time of the Exodus would die in the desert would not have applied to, him seeing that he would have been way past 60 at the time of the Exodus.

ויתן משה את הגלעד למכיר, “Moses gave the region known as hagilad, to Machir; this was because he was the firstborn of Menashe’s sons, so that Moses allocated his share to him first. Seeing that at that time Machir was already aged, having been too old to be part of the army, he gave him a fortified city. He remained there during the 14 years that the two and a half tribes were engaged in fighting with the tribes who would settle on the West Bank.

חותיהם This is rendered in the Targum by THEIR VILLAGES.

AND JAIR THE SON OF MENASHEH. This man [who was in fact from the tribe of Judah, as will be explained] is [here] traced back by genealogy to his mother’s family [Menasheh], because he took his inheritance together with them [i.e., the children of Menasheh]. And in the Book of Chronicles¹⁵⁸I Chronicles 2:21-22. it says explicitly that he was a son¹⁵⁹Actually “a grandson,” for his father was Segub, the son of Hezron (ibid., Verse 22). of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, and his mother was the daughter of Machir the son of Menasheh, as it says, And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead; whom he took to wife when he was threeescore years old, and she bore him Segub. And Segub begot Jair, who had three and twenty cities in the land of Gilead;¹⁵⁸I Chronicles 2:21-22. and it is [further] written, And Geshur and Aram took the hamlets of Jair from them, Kenath, and the villages thereof, even threescore cities. All these were the sons of Machir the father of Gilead.¹⁶⁰Ibid., Verse 23. From this [fact that Kenath is here described as being amongst ‘the hamlets of Jair’] it would appear that Nobach [mentioned here in Verse 42] who conquered Kenath and the villages thereof was a son of Jair, [although it is not mentioned here], and therefore these cities were also called ‘the hamlets of Jair.’¹⁶¹Ramban here means that the explanation of the phrase at the end of Verse 42, vayikra lah Nobach bi’shmo is: “Nobach called it [i.e., Kenath and the villages thereof] by his name” [i.e., by the name of Jair — his father — mentioned in the previous verse]; hence these towns also came to be called ‘the hamlets of Jair,’ as they are described in I Chronicles ibid.
And the meaning of the verse, And Moses gave Gilead unto Machir the son of Menasheh¹⁶²Verse 40 here. is [not “unto Machir” himself, but unto] his family, for it was his sons who conquered it.¹⁶³Verse 39: And the children of Machir the son of Menasheh went to Gilead and conquered it. Similarly, And unto Machir I gave Gilead¹⁶⁴Deuteronomy 3:15. means “unto the Machirites,” for since Machir was an honored man and the chief of all his descendants, therefore his children were called by his name, and in the same way the verses refer to the heads of the tribes in connection with the inheritance [given to their children]: southward it was Ephraim’s, and northward it was Menasheh’s.¹⁶⁵Joshua 17:10. So also: The land of Tappuah belonged to Menasheh etc.¹⁶⁶Ibid., Verse 8. And when Scripture says in the Book of Joshua, And this was the lot for the tribe of Menasheh; for he was the firstborn of Joseph. As for Machir the firstborn of Menasheh, the father of Gilead, because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan,¹⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 1. it also refers to his sons, who were men of war, for it was they who went to Gilead and conquered it, and therefore Moses gave them a great part of these lands. Perhaps Machir was still alive [at the time of the division of the Land in the days of Joshua], for the decree [against the generation] of the wilderness [resulting from the incident of the spies, that they were to die in the desert] had not been decreed upon him, as he was not amongst those counted by Moses and Aaron, being he was more than sixty years old [at the time of the first census after the exodus],¹⁶⁸Baba Bathra 121b. and he enjoyed longevity as did the earlier generations.¹⁶⁹See Vol. I, pp. 98-99.

ויאיר בן מנשה, “and Yair, son of Menashe, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this man traced himself to the family tree of his mother, seeing that he had taken possession of his ancestral land with that family. In Chronicles I 2,21 it is stated specifically that paternally he was the son of Chetzron, who in turn was a son of Peretz, son of Yehudah. [My version of the Tur, has this as Chetzron, son of Korach, clearly an error. Ed.] His mother was a daughter of Machir son of Menashe, as we have a verse stating: ואחר בא חצרון אל בת מכיר אבי גלעד ותלד לו את שגוב, ושגוב הוליד את יאיר ויהי לו עשרים ושלוש ערים בארץ גלעד, “after that Chetzron slept with (or married) a daughter of Machir, the father of Gilead. She bore for him Seguv, and Seguv fathered Yair, who had twenty three cities in the land of Gilead.” (Chronicles I 2,22)

V. 41. חות יאיר. Die Ethmologie von חוה als Dorf ist nicht sicher. Man glaubt von ”חיי“ mit verwandeltem י in ו, wie הוה von היה, und bedeutete es dann wie חית פלשתים einen Kreis von Menschen (vergl. Bereschit 18, 10). Vielleicht ist jedoch חוה lautverwandt mit ”חפה“ ,”חבא“ bergen, bedecken, und bedeutet sodann חוה das Dorf als "Schutzort" dessen Wohnungen vorzugsweise nur dem schützenden Unterkommen der Menschen bestimmt sind, nicht aber den Raum seiner eigentlichen Tätigkeit bilden, im Gegensatz zur Stadt, עיר, die organisch wie die "Haut" (עור) den Menschenverein umschließt und die Stätte seiner geistigen "Kulturentwicklung" (עור) wird (siehe Bereschit 4, 17). So ist auch die andere Bezeichnung für Dorf כפר, von כפר Schutzdecke, offenbar in diesem Gedankengange gebildet.

ויאיר בן מנשה, “meanwhile Yair, son of Menashe,” he was called after his mother, even though he was from the tribe of Yehudah (Ibn Ezra), as it is written that Chetzron. son of Yehudah married a daughter of Machir and sired Seguv from that marriage. Seguv in turn sired Yair, and they owned cities in Gilead. (Compare Chronicles I 2,21) We find a similar situation in Ezra 2,61 where priests were named after Barzilai the Giladi, who was not a priest. We cannot offer an excuse for how it came about that one tribe acquired part of another tribe’s ancestral heritage. We can only surmise that the rules of intermarriage between members of tribes did not apply as strictly in the lands conquered on the East Bank of the Jordan, formerly belonging to the tribe of the Emorites, as it did to the land west of the river Jordan.

ויקרא אתהן חות יאיר AND HE CALLED THEM “THE VILLAGES OF JAIR” — Because he had no children, he named them after himself, as a memorial.

ויקרא אתהן חוות יאיר, “and he named them;” ‘the villages of Yair.’ This was to commemorate Yair who had been killed in the battles for Ai. (verse 7) It is recorded here as it took place before the bulk of the country had been conquered, and was testimony to the bravery of Yair.

ויקרא לה נבח AND HE CALLED IT NOBAH — The word לה has no Mappik in the ה (as the word לָהּ "to it", usually has). Now I have seen the following in the work of R. Moses the Preacher: Because this name did not remain permanently to it, therefore the letter ה is weak (without a Mappik), — the implication of his explanation being that it (the word לה) is the same as לא “not”. But I wonder what explanation he will give of the two words similar to it, (Ruth 2:14): “And Boaz said לָה", and (Zechariah 5:11): “to build a house לָה”.

VAYIKRA LAH NOBACH’ (AND HE CALLED IT NOBACH). “[The word lah] has no dot in the [letter] hei [as it usually has when it means “to it”]. And I have seen in the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher¹⁷⁰See above in Seder Naso, Note 146. that because it did not keep this name permanently, therefore [the letter hei in the word lah] is pronounced softly [without the dot], and the interpretation implied is [as if it said] lo [meaning “not”]. But I am astonished at this, for what interpretation will he [Rabbi Moshe the Preacher] give in the case of two other similar words: ‘Vayomer lah Boaz’ (And Boaz said to her);¹⁷¹Ruth 2:14. ‘livnoth lah bayith’ (to build her a house)¹⁷²Zecharia 5:11. [in both of which places the word lah is also written without a dot in the letter hei]!” This is the language of Rashi.
Now although the Rabbi [Rashi] is “like a filled treasury of knowledge”¹⁷³Gittin 67a. of Torah, Halachoth and Agadoth, yet the explanation of the Rabbis in Midrash Ruth escaped his attention, [for they remarked¹⁷⁴Ruth Rabbah 5:5. on the verse: “Though I [Ruth] be not as one of thy handmaids.¹⁷⁵Ruth 2:13. Said Boaz to Ruth: Far be it from me [to consider you like one of the handmaids!] You are not like one of the handmaids, but like one of the matriarchs!¹⁷⁶Thus the phrase ‘Vayomer lah Boaz’ (and Boaz said to her), which follows Ruth’s remark [though I be not as one of thy handmaids] is written without the dot in the letter hei, the idea being, as Rabbi Moshe the Preacher explained, to convey the thought of lo, meaning a negation. Boaz is therefore saying to Ruth: “‘Lo’ — it is not as you say that you are like one of the handmaids in my eyes; on the contrary, you are like one of the matriarchs, and you are destined to be the ancestress of kings.” Similarly, And Nobach went and conquered Kenath, and the villages thereof, ‘vayikra lah Nobach bi’shmo’ (and he called it Nobach, after his own name) — this [lack of the dot in the letter hei] indicates that this name did not remain. So also, And he said unto me: To build ‘lah’(for her) a house in the land of Shinar¹⁷²Zecharia 5:11. — this teaches us that falsehood does not lead to any salvation.”¹⁷⁷The point here is that the prophet Zechariah saw a measure of falsehood being flown to a certain country. When he asked the angel, Whither do these [messengers] bear the measure? (Zechariah 5:10) he received the answer: ‘livnoth lah bayith’ (to build her a house) in Shinar [which is another name for Babylon]. Now since the word lah is written without the dot in the letter hei, the Rabbis interpreted that this is a negation, as if it said lo, conveying the idea that one may build a house of falsehood, but it will not last. — Thus the Midrash explains both the verses which Rashi found difficult. Thus far is the Agadah. And similarly in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin¹⁷⁸Sanhedrin 24a. the Rabbis said [with reference to the measure seen by the prophet Zechariah]:¹⁷⁷The point here is that the prophet Zechariah saw a measure of falsehood being flown to a certain country. When he asked the angel, Whither do these [messengers] bear the measure? (Zechariah 5:10) he received the answer: ‘livnoth lah bayith’ (to build her a house) in Shinar [which is another name for Babylon]. Now since the word lah is written without the dot in the letter hei, the Rabbis interpreted that this is a negation, as if it said lo, conveying the idea that one may build a house of falsehood, but it will not last. — Thus the Midrash explains both the verses which Rashi found difficult. “This was the measure of flattery and conceit which came down to Babylon;” [Whereupon the Gemara asked that we find elsewhere that conceit settled in Elam, and the answer was:] “It indeed came down [originally] to Babylon, and became dragged along to Elam. You may deduce this also from the verse, ‘livnoth lah bayith’ (to build her a house),”¹⁷²Zecharia 5:11. [which is written without the usual dot in the letter hei]. Thus the interpretation is based upon the absence of this dot [in the letter hei of the word lah, which indicates] that the house [of flattery and conceit] did not last in the land of Shinar [but was dragged along the Elam].
Mas’ei

ויקרא לה נבח בשמו, “He called it (the district) Novach just like himself.” The letter ה in the word לה is “weak,” i.e. without the customary dagesh. Ruth Rabbah 5,5 claims that the reason is that this name did not endure, i.e. the word is almost equivalent to having been spelled לא, “not.” We find other examples of the same defective spelling in Zecharyah 5,11: לבנות לה בית בארץ שנער, “to build a house for her (it) in the land of Shinar.” The subject there is the prophet being shown a measuring device known as eyfah which the angel transported away and the prophet wanted to know its significance. The prophet is informed that those who remain in Babylonia although the Temple was being reconstructed in Jerusalem would not have much of a future, as there is no future for untruth. The missing dagesh in the word לה in that verse alludes to the transience of people who decided to remain in a kingdom built on lies. Solomon expressed himself similarly when speaking about lies in Proverbs 12,19: “Truthful lips will be established forever; but a lying tongue endures only for a moment.” They will soon be tested and found to be lies. This is why man must love truth and hate lies. This is also what Zecharyah 8,19 said: “Love truth and peace!”

How he would expound two [similar] words. Ramban, together with the other commentators raise the difficulty: How is it that Rashi did not see in Midrash Rus (5:5) [which teaches]: “I am not even like one of your maidservants” (Rus 2:13). Boaz said to her, "Heaven forbid! You are not one of the maidservants, rather one of the matriarchs." Similarly regarding “Novach went…” [which teaches that the name did not endure] and similarly, “He said to me: To build her a house in the land of Shinar” (Zechariah 5:11), which teaches that there is no salvation for falsehood. See there. It appears to me that Rashi was also aware of the Midrash, however when he wrote, “I wonder…” this is in accordance with R’ Moshe Hadarshan’s comment that the name of the city did not endure and therefore it is written לה which is silent, as if it had written לא נבח ["not Novach"], for its name did not endure, rather it received another name. Thus one needs to expound the same inference for “Boaz said to her,” that Boaz did not [say it himself], rather it was an emissary, but this could not be. Similarly with “To build her a house,” [it would mean] not a house, rather a tent but this could not be. Therefore, Rashi chose his words and said, “How he would expound” meaning that since he expounds like this here, he should also do so there, but this would not be possible. In truth, the name of the city was not changed, for it was named after Novach. Yet, when it is written לה which is silent, this is because although Novach and the others named the city after Novach, his sons did not call it Novach. As Rambam writes (Mamrim 6:3) and is brought by Tur (Yoreh De’ah 240) that if the name of one's father was the same as that of others, one should change the name of the others [in order to avoid mentioning the name of one's father]. This appears to me to be the explanation of Rashi’s words.

V. 42. לה ,ויקרא לה ohne Mappik. Dazu im מדרש רבות (zu Ruth 2, 14) die Bemerkung: מלמד שלא עמד לה אותו השם, das Personalsuffixum sei ohne lautbarmachendes Mappik geschrieben, um anzudeuten, dass der Stadt und ihrem Gebiete der Name nicht geblieben, somit Nobachs Absicht, sich dadurch zu verewigen, nicht erreicht wurde. Soll damit vielleicht überhaupt ein leiser Tadel über ein solches Verfahren ausgesprochen werden, sich durch Holz und Stein ein Denkmal der Verewigung zu gründen, einer irdischen Verewigung, die der wahre Jude nur durch Großtaten des Geistes und der sittlichen Pflichttreue und durch den Gesamtinhalt eines edel vollbrachten Lebens suchen und finden solle?

ונובח, and Novach, one of the sons of Menashe (not substantiated)

ויקרא לה, “he named it,” he (Novach) renamed K’nath. The word נבח is spelled “weak,” the letter ב not having a dot in it. This suggests that the renaming was temporary, and lasted only until the members of his tribe returned from helping the other tribes conquer the land on the West Bank (14 years). It had to be named so, so that in the interval no one could stake a claim to this land and take it away from its rightful owner who was an absentee. This is what Rashi explains here, quoting Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan. He wonders how Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan can explain this phenomenon in 2 similar situations in Ruth 2,14 and Zecharyah 5,11.where the words בית and בעז also have no dot in the letter ב. There are some commentators who try to explain the absence of the dots in the 2 examples I just mentioned. Their reasoning is brilliant, but I decided that it is not relevant to us here as texts composed by authors of the books of prophets or Scriptures need not be examined as carefully as those in the Torah. Here we must assume that the sages responsible for the vocalisation in the Torah, had been inspired with Holy Spirit when they performed their task.