INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN. Ha-aretz kena’an (the land of Canaan) is similar to ve-hanevu’ah oded ha-navi (even the prophecy of Oded the prophet) (II Chron. 15:8), the meaning of which is, the prophecy, prophecy of Oded the prophet. The meaning of our clause is, the land, land of Canaan.¹ has the definite article prefixed to it. According to the rules of Hebrew grammar, a word with the definite article cannot be in the construct. The literal meaning of ha-aretz kena’an (the land of Canaan) thus is, the land Canaan. Hence I.E.’s comment that our verse be read as if written, ha-aretz, eretz kena’an. Ve-hanevu’ah oded ha-navi (even the prophecy of Oded the prophet) (II Chron. 15:8) is, for similar reasons, to be read, ve-hanevu’ah nevu’at oded ha-navi. See I.E. on Gen. 2:9 (Vol. 1, p. 54).

footnotes: ¹ Ha-aretz

BY THE SIDE OF EDOM. The word yede² (side of) means place of. Compare, by the side of (yad)³ the Jordan (Num. 13:29).

footnotes: ² Literally, hands of. Hence I.E.’s comment. ³ Literally, hand of. See I.E. on Gen. 1:26 (Vol. 1, pp. 45-46).

UNTO THE BROOK OF EGYPT. Nachlah mitzrayim means unto the brook of Egypt.⁴ suffixed to nachlah is in place of the preposition el (unto). It does not refer to the Nile.

footnotes: ⁴ For the heh

THE GREAT SEA. The Spanish sea.⁵ The meaning of our verse is: And the Great Sea shall be your western border.⁶. This should be rendered, and for the western border not, and the sea. The word yam can mean either the sea or the west. Hence I.E.’s comment. The Great Sea itself shall serve as the border.⁷

footnotes: ⁵ I.E.’s term for the Mediterranean Sea. ⁶ Our verse reads, u-gavel yam ⁷ Our verse literally reads, and the border on the west, ye shall have the Great Sea, and a border. I.E. renders this, you shall have the Great Sea itself serve as your border on the west

AND YE SHALL MARK OUT. The alef in ve-hitavvitem (and ye shall mark out) is in place of a vav.⁸. 38 reads, in place of a tav. The root of ve-hitavvitem appears to be alef, vav, heh. This root means to desire. And you shall desire appears out of place here. Hence I.E.’s suggestion that ve-hitavvitem comes from the root tav, vav, heh, which means to mark out. And you shall mark out fits in well within the context of our verse. Compare, ve-hitvita⁹. tav (and set a mark) (Ezek. 9:4). This is so, even though the forms differ.¹⁰ is in the hitpa’el while ve-hitvita is a hif’il.

footnotes: ⁸ Vat. Ebr ⁹ Which comes from the root tav, vav, heh ¹⁰ Ve-hitavvitem

AND YE SHALL MARK OUT. Ve-hitavvitem (and ye shall mark out) is similar to the word ta’avat (utmost bound) in Unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills (Gen. 49:26).¹¹

footnotes: ¹¹ I.E. makes the same point in Genesis. See Vol. 1, p. 447.

AND SHALL STRIKE. The word machah (strike) is to be interpreted as the ancients did. It means it shall break.¹² It is related to the word yimcha’u (clap) in Let the floods clap their hands (Ps. 98:8).

footnotes: ¹² When the boundary line reaches the lake of Kinneret, it will create a broken (not a straight) border (Weiser).

THE TWO TRIBES. Scripture mentions this a second time¹³ in order to explain the place of their inheritance.¹⁴

footnotes: ¹³ The first half of our verse repeats the previous verse. ¹⁴ The second part of our verse tells us where the two and a half tribes received their inheritance.

SHALL TAKE POSSESSION. Yinchalu (shall take possession) is a causative.¹⁵. According to I. E. the word yinchalu here should be rendered, shall cause you to take possession, rather than shall take possession. The same applies to the word u-nechaltanu (and take us for Thine inheritance) (Ex. 34:9)¹⁶ (and take us for Thine inheritance) should be rendered, you will cause us to inherit. See I.E.’s short commentary on Ex. 34:9. in the opinion of the grammarians.

footnotes: ¹⁵ Even though it is a kal ¹⁶ According to I.E., u-nechaltanu

ELEAZAR. He is mentioned first¹⁷ because Joshua went out by his command. Furthermore, Eleazar was also the son of Aaron. Scripture does not mention the princes of the tribes of Reuben or Gad,¹⁸ for they¹⁹ had already taken their share. The commentaries say that Scripture starts²⁰ with Judah,²¹ for that is the way the lot came out at first.²² However, there is a great argument against them.²³ Nevertheless, the comments appear correct to us.²⁴

footnotes: ¹⁷ Before Joshua. ¹⁸ In listing the princes of the tribes in verses 17-28. ¹⁹ Their tribes. ²⁰ In listing the tribes. ²¹ Even though Simeon was older. ²² When the land was actually divided. See Joshua 15:1. ²³ If Scripture followed the order in which the tribes actually received their inheritance, the children of Joseph should have followed Judah, for they took their inheritance after Judah. See Joshua 16. ²⁴ For no one can offer a better reason than these commentaries for listing Judah first (Weiser).

PEDAHEL. If the heh in Pedahel is silent then we have two words each with its own meaning,²⁵ is silent only when it comes at the end of a word. It is not silent when it comes in the middle of a word. Since the heh in the name Pedahel is silent we must interpret it as two words, padah el (God redeemed). I.E.’s point is that while many of the Hebrew names containing God’s name are partially abbreviated, this is not the case with Pedahel. for the heh is not an implied letter.²⁶

footnotes: ²⁵ The heh ²⁶ In the middle of a word. See I.E. on Ex. 3:15 (Vol. 2, p. 85).