אֵ֚לֶּה שְׁמ֣וֹת הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־יִנְחֲל֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם אֶת־הָאָ֑רֶץ אֶלְעָזָר֙ הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וִיהוֹשֻׁ֖עַ בִּן־נֽוּן׃
“Ito ang mga pangalan ng mga lalaking tatanggap ng lupain bilang mana para sa inyo: si Eleazar na saserdote at si Josue na anak ni Nun.
Ramban
AND THE CANAANITE, THE KING OF ARAD, HEARD. We find [mentioned] amongst the conquests of Joshua: the king of Arad, one.217Joshua 12:14. Ramban is to ask: since the verse in Joshua clearly indicates that Arad was in Canaan proper, to the west of the river Jordan: so how — as indicated in this section — could its king fight against Israel whilst they were still on the eastern bank of the Jordan: Moreover, in the section dealing with the [stages of the Israelites’] journeyings [in the wilderness], it is written, And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan,218Further, 33:40. and Scripture does not refer to [that land which is] on the eastern side of the Jordan as “the land of Canaan” without qualification, just as He said, the land of Canaan according to the borders thereof.219Ibid., 34:2. Verses 10-12 ibid., define the eastern boundary of Canaan as the Jordan: hence we see that the word “Canaan” does not include land east of the Jordan. So the question reappears: how come that the king of Arad, a land west of the Jordan, came to fight the children of Israel who were now encamped east of the Jordan? Furthermore, [if Arad was to the east of the river Jordan], Moses should have given the land of the king of Arad to one of the tribes of Israel [as their inheritance, in the same way that he divided up the other lands which he conquered]; but Scripture always tells220Ibid., Verses 13-15; Joshua 12:6, etc. that it was the land of Sihon and Og, the two Amorite kings, which Moses gave to the two tribes [Reuben and Gad] and to the half-tribe [of Menasheh], whereas the nine tribes and the [other] half-tribe [of Menasheh] received their inheritance after they crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan. Perhaps we may explain [that the reason for this is] that Israel utterly destroyed their land, and did not settle therein at all. But that is not [the] correct [explanation of the word v’hacharamti in Verse 2]. Similarly Rashi explains [that the expression: And Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal, and said, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand,] then ‘v’hacharamti’ their cities221Further, verse 2. means that Israel would dedicate the spoils [of those cities] to the Most High [and not that they would destroy the cities themselves].222Hence the question would be: If Arad was on the eastern side of the Jordan, why did Moses not give it to any of the tribes?
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that this king of Arad dwelt in the south218Further, 33:40. on the western side of the Jordan, in the land of Canaan near the Jordan, bordering onto the land of the children of Judah, near Hebron which is in the south;223Above, 13:22: And they went up into the south, and came unto Hebron. and he heard from afar of the coming of the children of Israel,218Further, 33:40. so he [the king] came by the way of Atharim224Here in Verse 1. to the plains of Moab to fight there against Israel. This is the meaning of the word ‘vayishma’ (and he heard) [i.e., he heard from a distance]. Therefore Scripture relates that he dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan,218Further, 33:40. [to point out] that he came from another land, to the place where Israel was [encamped]. Then Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal221Further, verse 2. that if He would deliver him [the king of Arad] into their hand, they would dedicate all that they had to G-d. And Scripture [further] relates225Further, Verse 3. that G-d heard their prayer, and the vow that they had vowed unto G-d, they fulfilled,226See Isaiah 19:21: and they shall vow a vow unto the Eternal, and shall perform it. for they killed them now in the days of Moses, as He had commanded, None devoted, that may be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death,227Leviticus 27:29. See Ramban ibid. and they gave all their spoils into the treasury of the House of the Eternal.228Joshua 6:24. Scripture continued by relating here225Further, Verse 3. that Israel also laid their cities waste when they came into the land of Canaan, after the death of Joshua, in order to fulfill the vow which they had made, and they called the name of the cities Hormah [Utter Destruction].229Ramban is thus saying that the account in Verse 3 of the destruction of the cities refers to an event which took place after Joshua’s death, and which is recorded in detail in the Book of Judges, as will be explained further on. Thus we must say that this future event was told by G-d to Moses, who wrote it down — like the rest of the Torah — at the command and dictation of G-d. Compare Ramban’s remarks in his introduction to the Commentary on the Torah, (Vol. I p. 9): “However, it is true and clear that the entire Torah — from the beginning of Genesis to in the sight of all Israel [the last words in Deuteronomy] — reached the ear of Moses from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He”. Since there is no difference in time for G-d, it is written in the past tense, for past, present, and future are all the same to Him. See also Ramban Vol. II, p. 192, for the reason why the tenses are often used interchangeably in prophetic statements. It is with reference to this that it is stated in the Book of Judges, And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad,230Judges 1:16. and it is [further] written, And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they smote the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And he called the name of the city Hormah.231Ibid., Verse 17. It was then that this vow [recorded here] was fulfilled, but Scripture, however, completed the account of the matter here, just as it did in the section speaking of the descending of the manna, [where it states]: and Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept. And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan,232Exodus 16:34-35. [an event which occurred] after the death of Moses, until the morrow after the Passover.233Joshua 5:11. Similarly, These are the names of the men that shall take possession of the Land for you etc.234Further, 34:17. constitutes a prophecy that these men will [still] live and function [at that time]; for it is impossible [to say] that G-d would specify for them men about whom there was a doubt [as to whether they would still be living; for if so], He should rather have commanded Joshua [about them] at the time of the division of the Land. [But since the command was already given to Moses, we see that the Torah speaks of future events, and that this constitutes a Divine promise that these specified men would live until the time of the division of the Land.]
It is also correct to say that already now in the days of Moses the Israelites destroyed this king [of Arad] and his people with the edge of the sword,235Exodus 17:13. and called the place of the battle Hormah, and after they crossed the Jordan, Joshua also killed the [then] king of Arad217Joshua 12:14. Ramban is to ask: since the verse in Joshua clearly indicates that Arad was in Canaan proper, to the west of the river Jordan: so how — as indicated in this section — could its king fight against Israel whilst they were still on the eastern bank of the Jordan: who ruled after [the one in the days of Moses], together with the [other] Canaanite kings who ruled at that time. When the children of Judah came into their cities, they destroyed them as well, and called the name of the cities Hormah,231Ibid., Verse 17. because [by destroying them] they fulfilled the vow which their fathers had made, and I will utterly destroy their cities.221Further, verse 2. Therefore He stated here, and he called the name of ‘the place’ Hormah,225Further, Verse 3. but there [in the Book of Judges] it is written, and he called the name of ‘the city’ Hormah,231Ibid., Verse 17. meaning the name of every city which belonged to the king of Arad, as they fulfilled their vow, and their spoils were dedicated to the Sanctuary. Thus [according to this interpretation] everything mentioned here happened at the same time [in the days of Moses], except that He mentioned, and their cities,225Further, Verse 3. [the destruction of which] occurred at a later time, when they came into their cities. It is for this reason that it says [here], and I will utterly destroy their cities,221Further, verse 2. and does not say “[I will destroy] them and their cities,” because the verse [only] mentions their vow concerning the future, but they themselves [the people] died in the battle [at the time of Moses] and were destroyed there. And the language of the verse fits in well with this explanation of ours, for it should have said: “and He delivered up the Canaanites ‘into their hand,’ and ‘they’ utterly destroyed them and their cities, and ‘they’ called the name of the place Hormah.” But Scripture omitted the pronouns236Thus it does not say that He gave the Canaanites “into their hand” [which would refer exclusively to the hand of the Israelites of the days of Moses]. Nor does it say vayacharimu (and “they” destroyed), but instead says: ‘vayachareim’ [literally: “and ‘he’ destroyed” — i.e., the one who destroyed them — now, or later on in the days of Joshua]. Similarly it does not say vayikr’u (“and ‘they’ called”), the name of the place Hormah [in the days of Moses] but ‘vayikra’ [“and ‘he’ called” — the one who called — now or later on]. in order to indicate that He delivered the Canaanites into the hand of whoever of the Israelites He delivered them, some of them now and some of them at a later time, for G-d hearkened to their prayer, and they fulfilled their vow.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that this king of Arad dwelt in the south218Further, 33:40. on the western side of the Jordan, in the land of Canaan near the Jordan, bordering onto the land of the children of Judah, near Hebron which is in the south;223Above, 13:22: And they went up into the south, and came unto Hebron. and he heard from afar of the coming of the children of Israel,218Further, 33:40. so he [the king] came by the way of Atharim224Here in Verse 1. to the plains of Moab to fight there against Israel. This is the meaning of the word ‘vayishma’ (and he heard) [i.e., he heard from a distance]. Therefore Scripture relates that he dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan,218Further, 33:40. [to point out] that he came from another land, to the place where Israel was [encamped]. Then Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal221Further, verse 2. that if He would deliver him [the king of Arad] into their hand, they would dedicate all that they had to G-d. And Scripture [further] relates225Further, Verse 3. that G-d heard their prayer, and the vow that they had vowed unto G-d, they fulfilled,226See Isaiah 19:21: and they shall vow a vow unto the Eternal, and shall perform it. for they killed them now in the days of Moses, as He had commanded, None devoted, that may be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death,227Leviticus 27:29. See Ramban ibid. and they gave all their spoils into the treasury of the House of the Eternal.228Joshua 6:24. Scripture continued by relating here225Further, Verse 3. that Israel also laid their cities waste when they came into the land of Canaan, after the death of Joshua, in order to fulfill the vow which they had made, and they called the name of the cities Hormah [Utter Destruction].229Ramban is thus saying that the account in Verse 3 of the destruction of the cities refers to an event which took place after Joshua’s death, and which is recorded in detail in the Book of Judges, as will be explained further on. Thus we must say that this future event was told by G-d to Moses, who wrote it down — like the rest of the Torah — at the command and dictation of G-d. Compare Ramban’s remarks in his introduction to the Commentary on the Torah, (Vol. I p. 9): “However, it is true and clear that the entire Torah — from the beginning of Genesis to in the sight of all Israel [the last words in Deuteronomy] — reached the ear of Moses from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He”. Since there is no difference in time for G-d, it is written in the past tense, for past, present, and future are all the same to Him. See also Ramban Vol. II, p. 192, for the reason why the tenses are often used interchangeably in prophetic statements. It is with reference to this that it is stated in the Book of Judges, And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad,230Judges 1:16. and it is [further] written, And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they smote the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And he called the name of the city Hormah.231Ibid., Verse 17. It was then that this vow [recorded here] was fulfilled, but Scripture, however, completed the account of the matter here, just as it did in the section speaking of the descending of the manna, [where it states]: and Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept. And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan,232Exodus 16:34-35. [an event which occurred] after the death of Moses, until the morrow after the Passover.233Joshua 5:11. Similarly, These are the names of the men that shall take possession of the Land for you etc.234Further, 34:17. constitutes a prophecy that these men will [still] live and function [at that time]; for it is impossible [to say] that G-d would specify for them men about whom there was a doubt [as to whether they would still be living; for if so], He should rather have commanded Joshua [about them] at the time of the division of the Land. [But since the command was already given to Moses, we see that the Torah speaks of future events, and that this constitutes a Divine promise that these specified men would live until the time of the division of the Land.]
It is also correct to say that already now in the days of Moses the Israelites destroyed this king [of Arad] and his people with the edge of the sword,235Exodus 17:13. and called the place of the battle Hormah, and after they crossed the Jordan, Joshua also killed the [then] king of Arad217Joshua 12:14. Ramban is to ask: since the verse in Joshua clearly indicates that Arad was in Canaan proper, to the west of the river Jordan: so how — as indicated in this section — could its king fight against Israel whilst they were still on the eastern bank of the Jordan: who ruled after [the one in the days of Moses], together with the [other] Canaanite kings who ruled at that time. When the children of Judah came into their cities, they destroyed them as well, and called the name of the cities Hormah,231Ibid., Verse 17. because [by destroying them] they fulfilled the vow which their fathers had made, and I will utterly destroy their cities.221Further, verse 2. Therefore He stated here, and he called the name of ‘the place’ Hormah,225Further, Verse 3. but there [in the Book of Judges] it is written, and he called the name of ‘the city’ Hormah,231Ibid., Verse 17. meaning the name of every city which belonged to the king of Arad, as they fulfilled their vow, and their spoils were dedicated to the Sanctuary. Thus [according to this interpretation] everything mentioned here happened at the same time [in the days of Moses], except that He mentioned, and their cities,225Further, Verse 3. [the destruction of which] occurred at a later time, when they came into their cities. It is for this reason that it says [here], and I will utterly destroy their cities,221Further, verse 2. and does not say “[I will destroy] them and their cities,” because the verse [only] mentions their vow concerning the future, but they themselves [the people] died in the battle [at the time of Moses] and were destroyed there. And the language of the verse fits in well with this explanation of ours, for it should have said: “and He delivered up the Canaanites ‘into their hand,’ and ‘they’ utterly destroyed them and their cities, and ‘they’ called the name of the place Hormah.” But Scripture omitted the pronouns236Thus it does not say that He gave the Canaanites “into their hand” [which would refer exclusively to the hand of the Israelites of the days of Moses]. Nor does it say vayacharimu (and “they” destroyed), but instead says: ‘vayachareim’ [literally: “and ‘he’ destroyed” — i.e., the one who destroyed them — now, or later on in the days of Joshua]. Similarly it does not say vayikr’u (“and ‘they’ called”), the name of the place Hormah [in the days of Moses] but ‘vayikra’ [“and ‘he’ called” — the one who called — now or later on]. in order to indicate that He delivered the Canaanites into the hand of whoever of the Israelites He delivered them, some of them now and some of them at a later time, for G-d hearkened to their prayer, and they fulfilled their vow.
Ibn Ezra
And ha-nechilot (הַנְּחִילוֹת): [This is likely] the beginning [words or tune name] of a liturgical poem/song (piyyut). Perhaps it is derived from the root [N-Ch-L, נ-ח-ל, meaning 'to inherit'], as in [a phrase like (Numbers 34:17)] "they shall divide the inheritance (yinchalu) for you." [The noun formation Nechilot is formed] in the manner of [a segolate noun like (I Kings 19:8)] "ha-achilah ha-hi" (האכילה ההיא - that eating).
Ramban
AND MOSES SPOKE UNTO THE HEADS OF THE TRIBES. Scripture did not precede this section with [the statement]: “And the Eternal spoke unto Moses, saying: Speak unto the heads of the tribes, and say unto them: This is the thing which the Eternal hath commanded,” as He stated in the section [dealing with] slaughtering [offerings] outside the Sanctuary Court,1Leviticus 17:2. and in other sections. Instead, He mentioned it as the end of this section, saying, These are the statutes, which the Eternal commanded Moses.2Further, Verse 17. And in the section of Vayehi Bayom Ha’shemini3Leviticus 9:1. it says: And Moses said: ‘This is the thing which the Eternal commanded that ye should do,’4Ibid., Verse 6. See also Ramban ibid. Verse 2. but did not mention the [actual] command [given by G-d to Moses] at all. Similarly, in the section about the manna [it is said], And Moses said: ‘This is the thing which the Eternal hath commanded: Let an omerful of it be kept etc.’5Exodus 16:32. [although the Divine command about it to Moses is not expressly stated].
Now the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel are the princes of the standards, whom the tribes had appointed over their standards after Nachshon the son of Amminadab [prince of the children of Judah]6Above, 2:3. and his colleagues had died. It is possible that they [the heads of the tribes referred to here] were those who are mentioned in the section [dealing with] the inheritance [of the Land]: These are the names of the men that shall take possession of the Land for you;7Further, 34:17. or it may be that those [referred to here] were others, for there Scripture speaks about [the leaders of] the future [saying] that when they come to divide up the Land [in the time of Joshua] all those mentioned will be living, and they will represent them [in the apportionment of the Land].
And Moses spoke unto the heads of the tribes. The reason [why he did not address this section to the entire people] is because it was not necessary to teach all the children of Israel that the father and husband [of a woman] can declare void those vows [of their daughter or wife, respectively] which involve affliction of the soul, and perhaps it is [even] necessary to conceal these [rights] from them, so that they should not treat vows lightly. But it was to the Sages of Israel, the heads of their tribes, that he taught the ordinance [of vows]. The verse also alludes to the interpretation of our Rabbis8Nedarim 78a. [who said] that the heads of the tribes have a special function and power in vows over and above the rest of the people, namely, that a single person who is an expert in the laws can release a person from a vow [and therefore, this section was addressed to the heads of the tribes, i.e., the Sages].
Now the [power of] release from vows [by a Sage] is not expressly stated in the Torah, but it is a law declared to Moses on Sinai, and Scripture “hung it on a hair’s-breadth,” just as the Rabbis have said:9Chagigah 10a. Now although these rules concerning the release from vows by a Sage “have nothing [in Scripture itself] on which they can be based,” they are yet on an absolute par with those laws which do have support in Scripture, as “they are all the essentials of the Torah” (ibid., 11b). “[The rules concerning] the release from vows [by a Sage] hover in the air, and have nothing [in Scripture itself] on which they can be based.” But Scripture did allude to it [by saying]: ‘lo yacheil’ (he shall not profane) his word.10Verse 3. For it did not say: “he shall not transgress his word.” but commanded that he should not make “profane” his word, meaning that he should not treat the vow as a hollow [and irreverent] thing; and when he comes to the court and they find him a cause for absolution11Thus, for example, if a man vows or swears that he will divorce his wife, the court may say to him: “Had you known that people would say about you: ‘Such is the nature of this person to divorce his wife,’ and that they will say about your daughters: ‘They are the daughters of a divorced woman! What did her mother do that she was divorced?’ [Had you known all this], would you then have made your vow?” If he says, “Had I known this I would not have made my vow,” they may release him from his vow (Nedarim 66a). See also Note 44 further on. and he regrets [having made the vow], and they release him thereof, he is not profaning it.9Chagigah 10a. Now although these rules concerning the release from vows by a Sage “have nothing [in Scripture itself] on which they can be based,” they are yet on an absolute par with those laws which do have support in Scripture, as “they are all the essentials of the Torah” (ibid., 11b). And the reason for this [law being indicated in this manner of allusion] is as I have said [above], that Scripture treated absolution from a vow or oath as if it were one of the secrets of the Torah which are only to be revealed to those who are fit to [hear] them, and therefore they are written [in the Torah] in allusion. And this section [of vows] is placed here [in the Torah] because since [in the section above] He mentioned vows to the Sanctuary, [as it is said], beside your vows, and your freewill offerings, whether they be your burnt-offerings, or your meal-offerings, or your drink-offerings, or your peace-offerings,12Above, 29:39. therefore He said furthermore: “Apart from these above-mentioned vows, there are also vows of a secular nature. [In the case of these vows, too], according to all that proceedeth out of a man’s mouth10Verse 3. he is obliged to fulfill, and to do all with which he bound his soul; for in [the case of] all vows [whether of a holy or secular nature] he shall not profane his word,10Verse 3. but others may absolve it for him” [by finding him a cause for absolution, as explained above].
Now the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel are the princes of the standards, whom the tribes had appointed over their standards after Nachshon the son of Amminadab [prince of the children of Judah]6Above, 2:3. and his colleagues had died. It is possible that they [the heads of the tribes referred to here] were those who are mentioned in the section [dealing with] the inheritance [of the Land]: These are the names of the men that shall take possession of the Land for you;7Further, 34:17. or it may be that those [referred to here] were others, for there Scripture speaks about [the leaders of] the future [saying] that when they come to divide up the Land [in the time of Joshua] all those mentioned will be living, and they will represent them [in the apportionment of the Land].
And Moses spoke unto the heads of the tribes. The reason [why he did not address this section to the entire people] is because it was not necessary to teach all the children of Israel that the father and husband [of a woman] can declare void those vows [of their daughter or wife, respectively] which involve affliction of the soul, and perhaps it is [even] necessary to conceal these [rights] from them, so that they should not treat vows lightly. But it was to the Sages of Israel, the heads of their tribes, that he taught the ordinance [of vows]. The verse also alludes to the interpretation of our Rabbis8Nedarim 78a. [who said] that the heads of the tribes have a special function and power in vows over and above the rest of the people, namely, that a single person who is an expert in the laws can release a person from a vow [and therefore, this section was addressed to the heads of the tribes, i.e., the Sages].
Now the [power of] release from vows [by a Sage] is not expressly stated in the Torah, but it is a law declared to Moses on Sinai, and Scripture “hung it on a hair’s-breadth,” just as the Rabbis have said:9Chagigah 10a. Now although these rules concerning the release from vows by a Sage “have nothing [in Scripture itself] on which they can be based,” they are yet on an absolute par with those laws which do have support in Scripture, as “they are all the essentials of the Torah” (ibid., 11b). “[The rules concerning] the release from vows [by a Sage] hover in the air, and have nothing [in Scripture itself] on which they can be based.” But Scripture did allude to it [by saying]: ‘lo yacheil’ (he shall not profane) his word.10Verse 3. For it did not say: “he shall not transgress his word.” but commanded that he should not make “profane” his word, meaning that he should not treat the vow as a hollow [and irreverent] thing; and when he comes to the court and they find him a cause for absolution11Thus, for example, if a man vows or swears that he will divorce his wife, the court may say to him: “Had you known that people would say about you: ‘Such is the nature of this person to divorce his wife,’ and that they will say about your daughters: ‘They are the daughters of a divorced woman! What did her mother do that she was divorced?’ [Had you known all this], would you then have made your vow?” If he says, “Had I known this I would not have made my vow,” they may release him from his vow (Nedarim 66a). See also Note 44 further on. and he regrets [having made the vow], and they release him thereof, he is not profaning it.9Chagigah 10a. Now although these rules concerning the release from vows by a Sage “have nothing [in Scripture itself] on which they can be based,” they are yet on an absolute par with those laws which do have support in Scripture, as “they are all the essentials of the Torah” (ibid., 11b). And the reason for this [law being indicated in this manner of allusion] is as I have said [above], that Scripture treated absolution from a vow or oath as if it were one of the secrets of the Torah which are only to be revealed to those who are fit to [hear] them, and therefore they are written [in the Torah] in allusion. And this section [of vows] is placed here [in the Torah] because since [in the section above] He mentioned vows to the Sanctuary, [as it is said], beside your vows, and your freewill offerings, whether they be your burnt-offerings, or your meal-offerings, or your drink-offerings, or your peace-offerings,12Above, 29:39. therefore He said furthermore: “Apart from these above-mentioned vows, there are also vows of a secular nature. [In the case of these vows, too], according to all that proceedeth out of a man’s mouth10Verse 3. he is obliged to fulfill, and to do all with which he bound his soul; for in [the case of] all vows [whether of a holy or secular nature] he shall not profane his word,10Verse 3. but others may absolve it for him” [by finding him a cause for absolution, as explained above].