Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Mga Bilang 34:2

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.

Monetary loss. I.e., [Rabbi Shimon is saying] it is specifically in a place where there is monetary loss that it needs to write צו for urging, but where there is no monetary loss it does not need to write צו, even if it is an expression of urging, immediately and for future generations. And [according to this] Rabbi Shimon disagrees [with the Tanna Kama]. [You might ask:] It says here צו even though there is [seemingly] no monetary loss! The answer is: Since the kohanim do not have any benefit from the burntoffering besides its skin, and that was only given to the kohein who brought the burnt-offering, therefore it is called a monetary loss as well. However, Re’m writes that Rabbi Shimon is not coming to argue on the words of the Tanna Kama. Rather, he is coming to add and say that the primary reason that Scripture uses the expression “command” is because there is monetary loss. However, when there is no monetary loss [although there is urging, immediately and for future generations,] the word צו is not applicable. The same applies when there is no urging, immediately and for future generations, although there is monetary loss, the expression צו is not applicable, etc. (see there, where Re’m dwells at length). [You might ask:] It is written regarding the apportioning of Eretz Yisroel (Bamidbar 34:2): “Command (צו) the children of Yisroel,” although there is no monetary loss! The answer is: Since the entire people of Yisroel were disparate with regard to the conquering of the Land, for one tribe took a larger portion than another, and some took a portion in the hills and some in the plains, it is also considered, in some aspect, a monetary loss. Re’m, however, explains the entire matter differently, examine it and choose for yourself. Meaning: Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say this, specifically here? All the offerings are applicable immediately and for future generations! He answers: All the offerings have a benefit for the kohanim in that they receive a portion of the sacrifice. Therefore, each kohein will hurry and not be indolent in the Divine service, so that he will not be preempted by someone else. This however, does not apply to a burnt-offering, which is entirely burnt, and the kohanim did not receive any of the meat. Therefore, I might think they would be indolent with it. This then would be a monetary loss for the kohein of that watch. Therefore, it says צו, an expression of urging (Divrei Dovid). Nachalas Yaakov explains that regarding other offerings they bring only the blood and the fats [to the altar] and the meat is eaten by the kohanim. Thus, their benefit is large and their effort is minimal. This is not so concerning the burnt-offering, for a lot of effort is involved [in bringing it to the altar] and its benefit is minimal — [they receive] only the hide — therefore, it requires urging. Rashi is answering the question: The laws of the burnt-offering were already set down in Parshas Vayikro! Rather, it comes to teach... (Gur Areyeh).

V. 4. ירה ,ירה בים, nicht bloß: werfen, sondern nach einem bestimmten Orte, einem Ziele werfen, daher der gewöhnliche Ausdruck für Pfeile schießen. Es scheint verwandt mit קרע ,קרא ,קרה etc. etwas aus seiner natürlichen oder bisherigen Richtung in eine andere, entgegengesetzte bringen. Daher der horizontale, der Schwerkraft entgegengesetzte Wurf. (Auch המצכה אשר יריתי Bereschit 31, 51 uחd ירה אבן פנתה ist Werfen an einen sehr bestimmten Ort. Josua 18, 6 heißt es vom Loose: ויריתי לכם גורל statt des gewöhnlichen הפיל גורל. Es bedürfte einer Untersuchung der Art und Weise, wie beim Losen verfahren worden. Der Satz בחיק יוטל את הגורל, im Schoße wird das Los entnommen, Prov. 16, 33, sowie die Prozedur, die uns Baba Batra 122a. hinsichtlich der Verteilung des Landes durchs Los mitgeteilt wird, und die ganz gleiche Joma 39a hinsichtlich der Losung für die beiden שעירים am י׳׳כ, lassen uns in keiner Weise ein "Werfen" bei dem Verfahren des Losens, vielmehr nur ein solches erkennen, wo die Lose in einem Behälter liegen, קלפי ,חיק, und daraus herausgegriffen, יוטל, rasch, ohne Auswahl herausgegriffen werden: טרף בקלפי. Das הפיל beim Lose scheint sich daher nicht auf das Verfahren, sondern auf die Wirkung des Losens zu beziehen. Durch das Los wird jemandem etwas zuerteilt, und weil diese Erteilung nicht nach Vorausberechnung und Wahl geschieht, wird dadurch bewirkt, daß jemandem etwas "zufällt". Ausdrücklich heißt es Bamidbar 34, 2 von dem zu verteilenden Lande: אשר תפל לכם בנחלה. Ebenso Josua 13, 6 הפילה לישראל בנחלה, so auch Jecheskel 45, 1; 47, 22; 48, 29. Ja in einem Verse (47, 22) wird נפל nach einander sowohl von dem Lande, als auch von den Personen gebraucht, denen das Land zuerteilt wird. תפילו אותה בנחלה לכם ולהגרים וגו׳ אתכם יפלו בנחלה וגו׳: ein Landesanteil fällt jemandem zu, oder jemand fällt einem Lande zu. Da Landbesitzergreifung hebräisch durch ֵהאָחז, vom Lande ergriffen werden, ausgedrückt wird, so ist der letzte Ausdruck ganz adäquat, und dürfte damit vielleicht das על פני כל אחיו נפל des Ismael Bereschit 25, 18 seine beste Erklärung finden. Wo demnach הפיל mit גורל verbunden ist, da dürfte unter גורל nicht der Zettel, oder das sonstige Losungsmittel, sondern der durchs Los anfallende Gegenstand zu verstehen sein, wie Bamidbar 36, 3 ומגרל נחלתנו יגרע Richter 1, 3 עלה אתי בגרלי und sonst. Josua 18, 6 heißt es nun, statt des gewöhnlichen: והפלתי ירה ,ויריתי לכם גרל :וגו׳ heißt aber, wie bemerkt, nach einem voraus bestimmten Ziele werfen, scheinbar somit der ungeeignetste Ausdruck für Losen! Allein nach Baba Batra 122a. war bei dieser Verteilung des Landes das Los mit den אורים ותומים also verbunden, daß Josua das Ergebnis des Loses schon immer im voraus ankündigte (siehe daselbst), ein Verfahren, das nicht treffender als durch ויריתי לכם גרל ausgedrückt werden könnte. Wenn darauf V. 8 u. 10 daßelbe Verfahren durch השליך גרל ausgedrückt wird, so ist damit gleichzeitig die völlige Unparteilichkeit und Nichtbeeinflussung des Loses durch Josua versichert.) ירה בים heißt somit wörtlich: schoss er ins Meer. Gottes Kriegsführung ist eine der menschlichen entgegengesetzte. Der kriegführende Mensch schleudert das Geschoss auf den Feind, Gott schleudert den Feind auf das Geschoss! So auch V. 1 רמה בים. —

האל בית אל is the same as אל בית אל the ה of האל being redundant. It is customary for Scripture to speak thus, e. g. (Numbers 34:2) “When ye come into the land of Canaan הארץ כנען (instead of ארץ כנען).

between Gilead and the land of Israel The eastern border of the land of Canaan. Trans-Jordan is not included within these borders; only the land of Canaan. Similarly, the borders demarcated in the Torah do not include Trans Jordan. And this is the meaning of this verse: And from the eastern border of the land of Canaan, which is between Hauran and Damascus which are situated on its northeastern corner, as is stated above in this section, and between Gilead and the land of Israel that is on the eastern side of the Jordan.