ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף דברים 2:31

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.

I WILL EXECUTE JUDGMENTS: I AM THE ETERNAL. “I Myself and not by means of the¹⁸⁹“The messenger.” In our text of Rashi: “a messenger.” Ramban’s version will be explained further on in the text. messenger.” Thus the language of Rashi. But the Midrash of the Sages is not so. Instead, the Midrash reads:¹⁹⁰Mentioned in the Hagadah recited on the night of Passover. “And I will go through the land of Egypt — I, and not an angel. And I will smite all the firstborn — I, and not a seraph. And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments — I, and not the messenger. I am the Eternal — I am He, and no other.” The purport of the Midrash is as follows: Since this chapter contains the words of Moses to Israel,¹⁹¹As indicated in Verse 3 above: Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying…. it would have been proper for the verse here to say, “And the Eternal will go through the land of Egypt and He will smite all the firstborn,” [instead of saying, And I will go through]. It is for this reason that the Rabbis interpreted the expression, and I will go through the land of Egypt, as meaning “I Myself” and not a messenger sent by Him in plagues, as in the days of David¹⁹²II Samuel 24:16. and Sennacherib.¹⁹³II Kings 19:35. “And I will smite all the firstborn — I, and not a seraph,” means that the striking of the plague will be done by the Holy One, blessed be He, and not like a king who wreaks vengeance on his enemies through his executioners, their counterparts on high being the seraphim from whom the fire comes forth consuming His enemies, as in the case of Elijah and the captain of the fifty.¹⁹⁴Ibid., 1:10. “And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments, and not by means of the messenger” sent by Him, blessed be He, for whatever is to be done upon the earth. This is the great angel, who on account of it is called Mattatron, the meaning of the word being “the guide of the road.” Thus the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:¹⁹⁵Sifre, Ha’azinu, 338. “The Holy One, blessed be He, was the mattatron (guide) for Moses, and He showed him the entire Land of Israel.” And in the [Midrash] Yelamdeinu¹⁹⁶Literally: “May [our master] teach us.” This was a Midrash which contained homilies that opened with the expression yelamdeinu rabbeinu (may our master teach us) i.e., about some matter of Halachic (legal) content. The Rabbi answered the question briefly and then turned to elaborate on the moral and ethical aspects connected therewith. This Midrash is now practically lost except for some sections found in the Tanchuma. The particular Midrash Ramban mentions here is found in the Aruch, under the root mattator. we find: “And Balak heard that Balaam came¹⁹⁷Numbers 22:36. for Balaam sent his mattatron before him.” And it is furthermore written there:¹⁹⁸This Midrash too is found in the Aruch, under the root mattator, which mentions it in the name of the Yelamdeinu. “Behold, I have begun to deliver up Sihon and his land before thee.¹⁹⁹Deuteronomy 2:31. Do not let it worry you. I am your mattatron. And be not surprised at this for I am even to be the mattatron before an uncircumcised person, i.e., before Cyrus [king of Persia], as it is said, I will go before thee.²⁰⁰Isaiah 45:2. Before a woman — Deborah and Barak — I will lead on the way, as it is said, Is not the Eternal gone out before thee.”²⁰¹Judges 4:14. [We find this word mattatron] also in many other places. I have also heard that in the Greek language, a messenger is called mattator. And [finally] the Rabbis interpreted [in the Midrash mentioned at the beginning of this discussion]: “I am the Eternal — I am He, and no other,” meaning that He is one, and there is no other god beside Him to protest against His act. This is the purport of this Midrash.

This is also what prompted the sages of the Midrash (Tanchuma Massey 4) to write concerning the above words: “did then G’d literally place the land of Canaan at the feet of the Jewish people?” They answer that the meaning is that G’d made their protective angel fall to earth in front of the Jewish people. This is why we find similarly worded verses in verse 8 of our chapter, and a similarly worded report in 2,33: “go and take possession of the land” had been used in verse 8; the Torah, at this point should have written only: “take possession of it,” instead of repeating the words את הארץ. The apparent repetition means that an obstacle which had existed in verse 8 had meanwhile been removed; the obstacle was the protective angel of the Canaanites. Rashi makes a similar point in explaining the wording of Deut. 2,31.
As to the word החל רש used by G’d in 2,31 as compared to the word רש without the preamble החל in our verse here, G’d meant that seeing He had commenced giving possession of the lands of Sichon to the Jewish people (at the time), it was now time to complete the work of taking possession of all the lands of the Canaanites and to complete the process. This is why in our verse the word החל, “begin!” would have been out of place. There was no reason to add the word גמור, “finish, complete,” in our verse because as soon as the Israelites would have commenced to do their part (if the report of the spies had been uniformly favorable) the whole campaign would have ended almost as soon as it started. When G’d commences a war, it does not last long.
We have a Midrash Rabbah in Exodus 21,5 in which the same point is made concerning the demotion of Nevuchadnezzar of which Daniel speaks in Daniel 4,28 when a heavenly voice announced that the king had already lost his kingdom (although he still occupied the throne and bragged about his accomplishments). Rabbi Joshua ben Avin interprets the words קל מן שמיא נפל in that verse as “an angel named קל, i.e. Nevuchadnezzar’s celestial counterpart, had fallen from heaven.” This is why the verse in Daniel did not speak about a voice from heaven being heard, or calling, but “falling.” It was not “a voice” but that angel. Immediately after that, heavenly voices saying: “your kingdom Nevuchadnezzar has departed from you, (and much worse)” were heard.

אוריש means as the Targum has it אתריך, I will drive out. Similar is (Deuteronomy 2:31) “Begin to drive out (רש)”; and similar is, (Numbers 21:32) “and drove out (ויורש) the Amorites” — all having the sense of expelling.

אשר מי אל וגו׳ FOR WHAT GOD IS THERE [… WHO CAN DO ACCORDING TO THY WORKS] — Thou art unlike a mortal king who has counsellors and assessors who would prevent him when he wishes to show kindness and to forgo, what is due to him: Thou, however, — there is none who can prevent Thee if Thou pardonest me and dost annul Thy decree (Sifrei Devarim 27:6). But according to its plain sense it means: "Thou hast begun to show Thy servant the war with Sihon and Og, as it is written, (Deuteronomy 2:31) “Behold I have begun to give [Sihon and his land] before thee"; let me behold also the war with the thirty-one kings of Canaan.