YOUR BRETHREN THE CHILDREN OF ESAU. The reason for this expression is that descent of Israel is from Abraham and all his seed are thus “brothers” because they were all circumcised. This is the purport of the verse, *Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is ‘thy brother.’*¹²⁴ Only the sons of the concubines¹²⁵ [of Abraham], Ishmael, Midian¹²⁶, Verse 2. and all children of Keturah¹²⁷, Verses 1-4. are not in this “brotherhood,” as we see from the verse, for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee.¹²⁸, 21:12. Thus Esau [Edom] is in this “brotherhood” for he is a son of Isaac, but Ishmael, born of Hagar and Midian, born of Keturah, although they are Abraham’s biological sons, are not in this “brotherhood,” for as G-d said to Abraham: in Isaac shall seed be called to thee. This makes it clear that the spiritual brotherhood of the Abrahamitic seed is restricted to descendants of Isaac. See my Hebrew commentary p. 351.

footnotes: ¹²⁴ Further, 23:8. ¹²⁵ Genesis 25:6. ¹²⁶ Ibid. ¹²⁷ Ibid. ¹²⁸ Ibid.

YE SHALL PURCHASE FOOD OF THEM FOR MONEY. If you should desire to eat of the fruits of their land you should not take it from them except for the full price¹²⁹, 23:9. at their pleasure, this being the sense of the word me’itam (of them) [purchase food ‘of them,’ i.e., with their consent]. Also you shall not drink water of them at all, except for money with their consent.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Ibid.

FOR THE ETERNAL THY G-D HATH BLESSED THEE. “Therefore, you should not deny His goodness by behaving as though you were poor; instead deport yourselves like rich people.” This is Rashi’s language. Now, I have not understood what he meant [by the next phrase in the verse, For the Eternal thy G-d hath blessed thee] in all the work of thy hand, since their blessings were heavenly blessings and they did nothing with their hands that it be blessed! Perhaps the expression in all the work of thy hand alludes to the sheep and herds which they brought out from Egypt.¹³⁰ They also had riches, herds, and acquisitions from the spoils of the Egyptians and the spoils of Amalek. Everything they possessed was blessed, similar to what is stated, Thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions are increased in the land.¹³¹ Moreover, the Eternal hath known thy walking through this vast wilderness and He supplied you there with all your needs — the manna, the quails, and the waters of the well — so that thou hast lacked nothing that is needed by wayfarers. And so it was — they bought food and nourishment from the children of Esau as Moses said [to Sihon], Thou shalt sell me food for money that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink etc.; as the children of Esau did unto me etc.¹³²

footnotes: ¹³⁰ Exodus 12:32. ¹³¹ Job 1:10. ¹³² Further, Verses 28-29.

THE EMIM ABODE THEREIN FORMERLY etc. “You [Moses] might think that this is the land of the Rephaim which I gave to Abraham¹³³ because the Emim, who are Rephaim, dwelled there formerly, but this [the land of the Moabites] is not the land [that I promised to Abraham], because I drove out those Rephaim from before the children of Lot and settled them in place of the Rephaim. Those Emim were considered Rephaim,¹³⁴ (giants).” This is interpreted by Rashi to mean: “The Emim who formerly lived in the lands of Ammon and Moab were accounted as Rephaim, that is, the Anakim, (giants). But those lands of Ammon and Moab were not the land of the Rephaim which I promised to Abraham.” Therefore Moses was not to wage war against the lands of Ammon and Moab. like Anakim (giants) who are called Rephaim [from the root raphoh — weak] because the hands of everyone who sees them become ‘weak.’ Emim [from the root eimah — fear] are so called because their ‘dread’ lays upon people.” This is Rashi’s language. And similarly he wrote [further, in connection with the land of Ammon of which Scripture states], *That also is accounted a land of Rephaim:*¹³⁵ “because the Rephaim dwelled there formerly, but that [land] is not what I gave to Abraham.” But I wonder at the words of the Rabbi! Why should Scripture explain to us concerning the land of Ammon and Moab that it is not the land of Rephaim which He gave to Abraham? Was it to state that it was not due to Israel and was not part of the land which G-d swore to their fathers to give them? [That could not be the reason! On the contrary,] Scripture states only, because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession¹³⁶ meaning that, although it was part of Abraham’s inheritance, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave it to the children of Lot for Abraham’s sake. As Rashi himself wrote:¹³⁷ “[The lands of] two nations [from among the ten nations originally given to Abraham — Genesis 15:19-21], I gave to the children of Lot [Ammon and Moab] as a reward because Lot went with Abraham to Egypt¹³⁸ and kept silent concerning what Abraham said about his wife, ‘she is my sister.’” Moreover, the Rabbi himself wrote with reference to Esau:¹³⁷ “[The lands of] ten nations¹³⁹, 15:19-21: the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite; and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim; and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite. I gave to Abraham. Seven of them will be yours. [Concerning the lands of] the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite — which are Ammon and Moab, and Mount Seir — one [i.e., Mount Seir] belongs to Esau, and two of them to the children of Lot.” And if so, the lands of Ammon and Moab, and Mount Seir were certainly of the inheritance of Abraham; why then did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Moses that he should not think that this [land of Ammon and Moab] is the land of Rephaim which was given to Abraham? What difference is there between [the lands of] the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite [which were promised to Abraham but given to the children of Lot and Esau], and [the land of] the Rephaim [which was also promised to Abraham]?¹⁴⁰ the land of Rephaim promised to Abraham? Moreover, the expression Rephaim dwelled there ‘l’phanim’ (of old)¹³⁵ indicates that it belongs to them because they dwelled there before anyone else, as in the verse ‘l’phanim’ (of old) Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth¹⁴¹ [thus raising another question on Rashi’s assertion: If the Rephaim lived there “of old,” why was this land given to the children of Lot]? But the interpretation of the verses is the opposite of the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] words. It was because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, Be not at enmity with Moab etc. because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession,¹⁴² Scripture tells that the land was indeed due to the seed of Abraham except that He gave it to the children of Lot. Scripture further says that in that land there dwelled of old a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim,¹⁴³ and, therefore, *the Moabites called them ‘Emim’*¹⁴⁴ because of the great “dread” which they cast upon those who saw them. Now G-d, in honor of Abraham, performed a miracle for the children of Lot. They defeated [the Emim] and drove them from before them; it is therefore not proper to take from them by force the land which G-d gave them through a miracle. ‘Yeichashvu’ [They were also ‘yeichashvu’ Rephaim]¹⁴⁴ is an expression of importance and esteem, similar to the following: he was despised, and we did not ‘chashavnuhu’ (esteem him);¹⁴⁵ who shall not ‘yachshovu’ (regard) silver?;¹⁴⁶, 13:17. for how little is he ‘nechshav’ (esteemed)?¹⁴⁷, 2:22. and so many others. And in the language of the Sages we find the expression adam chashuv (an esteemed person).¹⁴⁸ This is why Scripture placed the statements in proximity to [the verse that discussed the lands of Ammon and Moab, the children of Lot]. And in Seir the Horim abode formerly.¹⁴⁹ It declares that for the same reason He stated [for restraining Israel from attacking] Moab, He likewise withheld them [Israel] from attacking the land of Seir. Because formerly it also belonged to the Horim, and it was part of the gift to Abraham — for the Horite is identical with the Hivite, and they [the Hivites] were of the children of Canaan, as it is said, Esau took his wives of the daughters of ‘Canaan’ etc. *and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon ‘the Hivite’*¹⁵⁰ and Zibeon was of the sons of Seir ‘the Horite,’ the inhabitants of the land.¹⁵¹, Verse 20. So, also, wherever the inheritance of Israel is mentioned, the Hivite is always included with the Canaanite among the seven nations,¹⁵² because the Hivite is enumerated as the sixth son among the children of Canaan.¹⁵³ You will also see this in the narrative of the war of Amraphel which he fought against the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zebaiim, and Zoar,¹⁵⁴, 14:8-9. who were Canaanite kings. They [Amraphel and his associates] smote ‘the Rephaiim’ in Ashteroth-karnaim,¹⁵⁵, Verse 5. and ‘the Horite’ in their mountain, Seir,¹⁵⁶, Verse 6. for the Horite and the Rephaim belonged to the Canaanite kings. It is possible that [the Horite] was called Hivite [from the term chivi — a snake] because he was like a serpent in the way.¹⁵⁷, 49:17. He was also called the Horite from the noun ‘chor’ (the hole of) the asp.¹⁵⁸ For names [like Horite, Hivite] preserve the meaning and change letters, like Zerach (Zerah)¹⁵⁹ means “shining.” and Tzochar (Zohar),¹⁶⁰ and Zerach both are names for the same son of Simeon. of the expression: and ‘tzochar’ (white) *wool;*¹⁶¹ ‘tzchoroth’ (white) asses,¹⁶² and Tzochar (from the words “shining” and “white”) both refer to the same person although the letters in the names interchange. [and in the case of the Horite and Hivite, the names were chosen to suggest the treacherous, snake-like nature of the people]. They also assign new names to praise [someone]. Thus the name Ya’akov (Jacob), an expression of guile or of deviousness,¹⁶³, 32:29 [Jacob’s name changed to Israel]. was changed to Israel [from the word sar (prince)] and they called him Yeshurun (Jeshurun)¹⁶⁴ from the expression whole-hearted ‘v’yashar’ (and upright).¹⁶⁵ Thus Scripture is stating that the Horites [whose land was] given to Abraham¹⁶⁶ dwelled formerly in Seir, and the children of Esau who are of the seed of Abraham succeeded them and dwelled in their stead by a miraculous event. The Horites were a populous nation in their land and the children of Esau came to dwell there and overpowered them just as Israel did to the remaining nations [in the land that was] promised to Abraham, that G-d gave them in His great power. Thus G-d divided [the lands of] all these [ten] nations among the seed of Abraham — one to Esau, and the balance to Israel who was the firstborn son.¹⁶⁷ It is therefore not proper to steal from Esau what G-d caused him to inherit, since G-d would be angry with anyone who would forcibly take from him [Esau] the inheritance that He, blessed be He, caused him to inherit, just as He would be wroth with him who would forcibly take the Land from Israel after He caused him [Israel] to inherit it, just as it says, As for all Mine evil neighbors, that touch the inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit.¹⁶⁸ This is the sense of the expression mentioned here, as Israel ‘did’ unto the Land of his inheritance,¹⁶⁹ when it was not yet done! [But the meaning thereof is as explained: that just as G-d would be wroth with him who would rob Israel of his inheritance after He will have given it to him, in the same way, He does not give Israel the right to take the land of Esau after having given it to him.] Similarly He further said with reference to [the land of] the children of Ammon that it is of the land of the Rephaim [which G-d gave to Abraham]¹⁷⁰ for that, too, belonged first to the Rephaim. The Ammonites called them Zamzummim,¹⁷¹ from the expression ‘z’mamo (his evil scheme) do not further,¹⁷² except that [the letters zayin and mem] are doubled [in the name “Zamzummim”], which thus indicates “the people from whom nothing is withheld which they purpose to do.”¹⁷³

footnotes: ¹³³ Genesis 15:20. ¹³⁴ In our texts of Rashi this is marked as a comment upon Verse 11: “They also were accounted Rephaim, even as the Anakim ¹³⁵ Further, Verse 20. ¹³⁶ Verse 19. ¹³⁷ Here on Verse 5. ¹³⁸ Genesis 13:1. ¹³⁷ Here on Verse 5. ¹³⁹ Ibid. ¹⁴⁰ In other words, Rashi wrote of the lands of the Kenite, etc., that, notwithstanding the fact that they were of the inheritance of Abraham, they were still given to the children of Lot for the reason stated by Rashi that Lot protected Abraham’s secret in Egypt. Similarly we could say that the land of the Rephaim, too, was originally destined for Abraham, but that G-d gave it to another nation. Therefore, on what does Rashi base his assertion that this land was not ¹³⁵ Further, Verse 20. ¹⁴¹ Psalms 102:26. ¹⁴² Verse 9. ¹⁴³ Verse 10 before us. ¹⁴⁴ Verse 11. ¹⁴⁴ Verse 11. ¹⁴⁵ Isaiah 53:3. ¹⁴⁶ Ibid. ¹⁴⁷ Ibid. ¹⁴⁸ Berachoth 19a. ¹⁴⁹ Verse 12. ¹⁵⁰ Genesis 36:1. ¹⁵¹ Ibid. ¹⁵² See further, 7:1, etc. ¹⁵³ See Genesis 10:17. ¹⁵⁴ See ibid. ¹⁵⁵ Ibid. ¹⁵⁶ Ibid. ¹⁵⁷ Ibid. ¹⁵⁸ Isaiah 11:8. ¹⁵⁹ Numbers 26:13. The Hebrew word Zerach ¹⁶⁰ Exodus 6:15. Tzochar ¹⁶¹ Ezekiel 27:18. ¹⁶² Judges 5:10. Ramban thus shows that the names Zerach ¹⁶³ Genesis 27:36. — Ibid. ¹⁶⁴ Further, 32:15. ¹⁶⁵ Job 1:1. ¹⁶⁶ Since the Horites are identical with the Hivites, as explained above, and the Hivites were children of Canaan, and the Canaanite is among the ten nations whose lands were given to Abraham (Genesis 15:21), it follows that the land of the Horites was given to Abraham. ¹⁶⁷ See Exodus 4:22. ¹⁶⁸ Jeremiah 12:14. ¹⁶⁹ Verse 12. This would seem to indicate that at the time that Esau conquered his land, Israel had already conquered theirs. But Israel had, at that time, not taken possession of any land. ¹⁷⁰ Genesis 15:20. ¹⁷¹ Further, Verse 20. ¹⁷² Psalms 140:9. ¹⁷³ See Genesis 11:6.

TEICHASHEIV’ (ACCOUNTED). The land of Ammon, too, is considered part of the land of Rephaim; in other words, it is included within it. Similarly, from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward ‘teichasheiv’ (is accounted) to the Canaanites.¹⁷⁴ So also, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin; for Beeroth also ‘teichasheiv’ (is accounted) to Benjamin.¹⁷⁵ It is possible that such is also the meaning of the expression written above [with reference to Moab], these also are ‘yeichashvu’ Rephaim,¹⁷⁶ Scripture stating that the Emim who formerly dwelled there¹⁷⁷, Verse 10. are also “accounted”¹⁷⁸ as an expression of importance and esteem. Here Ramban explains it as “accounted” [to the Rephaim]. Rephaim since they were part of them, and they were as the Anakim,¹⁷⁶ and therefore they [the Moabites] *called them ‘Emim’*¹⁷⁶ [because their “dread,” like that of the Anakim (giants) lay upon the people]. This is the correct interpretation. Thus the land of Rephaim was very large, and from it, Moab and Ammon took their lands. The balance remained for the Rephaim themselves, for Og, who dwelled in Ashtaroth, was of them, as is stated, and they smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim.¹⁵⁵, Verse 5. And in the Book of Joshua it is written, and cut down a space for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim.¹⁷⁹ Therefore, Scripture says of the border of Moab and Ammon that it is “accounted to the Rephaim,” [still calling them “Rephaim,” the name by which they were originally known]. The Moabites and the Ammonites were the ones that changed [the name of the Rephaim] to other names: [the Moabites calling them] Emim and [the Ammonites calling them] Zamzummim.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁴ Joshua 13:3. ¹⁷⁵ II Samuel 4:2. ¹⁷⁶ Above, Verse 11. ¹⁷⁷ See ibid. ¹⁷⁸ In Verse 10 above Ramban explained yeichashvu ¹⁷⁶ Above, Verse 11. ¹⁷⁶ Above, Verse 11. ¹⁵⁵ Ibid. ¹⁷⁹ Joshua 17:15.

AND THE AVIM THAT DWELT IN VILLAGES. Scripture is stating of the Avim that dwelt in villages — without a wall around them¹⁸⁰ as far as Gaza which was the Canaanite border, as it is said, And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza¹⁸¹ — the Caphtorim that came forth out of Caphtor destroyed them and they dwelt in their stead. Now the Caphtorim were descendants of Mitzraim¹⁸², Verses 13-14. and their land was not part of the gift given to Abraham; nevertheless their land was possessed by Israel because the Caphtorim had conquered it from the children of Canaan. The verse stating with reference to the land of the Philistines, for unto thee [Isaac], and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands¹⁸³, 26:3. was said for this reason: that the land [of the Philistines] originally belonged to the children of Canaan. Therefore, in the days of Joshua Israel drove out the five lords of the Philistines: the Gazite, the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, and the Ekronite; also the Avim,¹⁸⁴ for they all dwelled within the Canaanite border — in Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and in Ekron. They [the lords] were called by the name of their place [i.e., the Gazite, the Ashdodite etc. because, although they were foreigners, after their conquest of these five Canaanite towns, they adopted their names], for they destroyed the Avim who were of the children of Canaan¹⁸⁵ who dwelled within the border of the Canaanite from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza,¹⁸¹ and they abode in their stead. Zidon also belonged to the Philistines, as it is written, And also what are ye to Me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the regions of Philistia?¹⁸⁶ In my opinion the Avim are identical with the Hivites [who were of the children of Canaan],¹⁸⁷ for such is the customary way of Scripture to alter names, as we have said, so long as they indicate the same meaning, and “the serpent”¹⁸⁸ (the Hivites), which is of the term chivah — a snake. ye’aveit (curves) itself.¹⁸⁹. Thus the Chivim are identical with the Avim, as both names suggest the snake and its characteristic of crawling crookedly. And in Bereshith Rabbah [we find the following text]:¹⁹⁰ “Said Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon: They were as expert in [tasting] earth [to determine which crops it is capable of producing] as the serpent [whose only food is the earth]. In the Galilee they call chivya (a serpent) ivya.” The Sages used to call it achna,¹⁹¹ and also chachina.¹⁹² that such was the reading in the Talmud. Thus it is clear that the letters a’yin and cheth are interchangeable, which explains why the name “Avim” is identical with “Chivim.” The Rabbis have interpreted:¹⁹³ “‘Vayei’ather’ (and He was entreated) of him, and heard his supplication.¹⁹⁴ Said Rabbi Levi: In Arabia they call chatirah (an opening) atirah” [and the meaning of the verse is thus: “and the Eternal made ‘an opening’ for his prayer to be accepted”].¹⁹⁵. Ramban uses this text to prove that the letter a’yin [in the word vayei’ather — “and He was entreated”] interchanges with the cheth [vayeichather — and He made “an opening”]. This is an additional support to Ramban’s thesis that the Avim are identical with the Chivim — the Hivites. Ramban will go on to cite several further examples of the interchangeability of the letters a’yin and cheth. — In conclusion it should be noted that the episode with Menasheh, king of Judah, illustrates the efficacy of repentance under all circumstances, for even when all the “gates” were closed to his supplication, Menasheh’s prayers were yet accepted through a special “opening” in the “Throne of the Almighty.” The Rabbis have also said:¹⁹⁶ “*How hath the Eternal ‘ya’iv’*¹⁹⁷ (a cloud): How hath the Eternal ‘covered with a cloud’ … The Midrash will explain it as though it were written with a cheth, as Ramban continues. *the daughter of Zion in His anger!*¹⁹⁸ Rabbi Chama the son of Rabbi Chanina explained it as follows: how has the Eternal chiyeiv (assigned guilt) in His anger! There are places where they call chiva (guilt) iva.” Chavkim (rungs) are called avkim.¹⁹⁹ (rungs).” See also Vol. I, p. 350. Such [interchangeability of the letters a’yin and cheth] is common in the language. Of Rabbi “Chiya” [the Rabbis say],²⁰⁰ “And what does ‘Iya’ say of this matter?” Our Rabbis were also accustomed to speak of heisei’ach hada’ath (distractedness or absent-mindedness) instead of hisa hada’ath [changing the a’yin of hisa to cheth of heisei’ach]. In the Jerusalem Talmud, they always [use the term] hisiya [to signify “distractedness”].²⁰¹ And in the Mishnah we also find:²⁰² “[If someone was clean] v’heisia (and had given up the thought of) eating.” Commentators have also said of the verse ‘ushu’ and come all ye nations²⁰³ that it is like chushu (hasten ye). And in the Mechilta we find:²⁰⁴ 7. “Ufasachti,²⁰⁵ Rabbi Yashiya says: Do not read ufasachti (and I will protect), but read ufusati (and I will step over), meaning that G-d, blessed be He, will ‘pass over’ the houses of the children of Israel.” He [Rabbi Yashiya] made ufasachti refer to the word p’sioth (steps) by interchanging the cheth with an a’yin. Scripture now finished informing us about the entire land of the Hivites that was lost [to them]. Part of it was taken by [the children of] Esau²⁰⁶ and that is forbidden to us, and part of it was taken by the Caphtorim and we may take it from them. And in Bereshith Rabbah²⁰⁷ I have found that the Avim are identical with Rephaim [and not with the Hivites as we have stated hitherto]. Thus the Rabbis comment on the verse, *The Nephilim were in the earth:*²⁰⁸ “The Rephaim are the Avim. They were called Rephaim [of the root raphoh — weak] because the heart of anyone who beheld them became weak as wax. They were called Avim [of the term ivya — serpent] because they were as expert as a serpent [whose food is the earth] in [tasting] earth [to determine which crops it is capable of producing].” The Rabbis further said there with reference to G-d’s gift to Abraham:²⁰⁹ “Rabbi Dostoie in the name of Rabbi Shmuel said: Because He does not mention here [among the lands of the ten nations given to Abraham] the Hivite, therefore, He introduced the Rephaim in their place.” Now when I pondered this text, I found the matter to be true and authentic, correct and affirmed. For Moses our teacher mentioned to them the seven nations [whose lands] Israel inherited, as he said, and He shalt cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou.²¹⁰ Now six of these are mentioned in the gift given to Abraham,²¹¹ but the Hivite is not mentioned there! Then he [the Hivite] must in any case be either the Rephaim²¹² or of the Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite²¹³, Verse 19. [all of whom are mentioned in the gift to Abraham]. All our Rabbis say²⁰⁹ that Israel did not inherit [the lands of] the Kenite, Kenizzite and Kadmonite, but that He will make them inherit [those lands] in the future, and about them it is said, And when the Eternal thy G-d enlarge thy boundary, as He hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which He promised to give unto thy fathers.²¹⁴ And so also it is not mentioned anywhere that they inherited them in the days of Joshua. If so, the Rephaim given by Him to Abraham must be the Hivite, who was the sixth son of Canaan,¹⁸⁷ and who was called Hivi by his father; while in the days of Abraham they surnamed him Rephaim. In my opinion the name Rephaim is derived from that of the Chivi [Hivite — which as explained above denotes “a serpent”], related to the expression on the lair of the asp and on the viper’s den,²¹⁵ for things that are hidden in the earth [like the serpent], the [Hebrew] language calls ‘rephaim’, for example: ‘ha’rephaim’ (the dead) *tremble beneath the waters and the inhabitants thereof;*²¹⁶ and the earth shall bring to life ‘rephaim’ (the dead).²¹⁷ Now the children of this Hivite were very numerous and, when the families of the Canaanite spread abroad,²¹⁸ this family took possession of large territories, some of them called “the land of Rephaim;” others, [“the land of] Horites;” and some, [“the land of] Avim;” and generally they were all Hivites, and they were all Rephaim, just as, among our people [there are] Ephraim, Judah, Israel — but generally speaking, all are [called] Israel. Now, these names [Rephaim, Horites, Avim] are all descriptives derived from the name Chivi [Hivite — which denotes “a serpent”] since his name was Chivi they surnamed him Rephaim from chivya (a serpent) because the serpent dwells in the holes of the earth [and things that lie hidden in the earth are called “Rephaim,” as explained above]. They were likewise called “the Horite” and “the Avim” because of their association with the term serpent, as I have explained above.²¹⁹ and a’yin interchange. Now since chivya is a snake, the word “Avim” likewise denotes the same. Ramban did not explain the name Chorim (Horites) above; but it is obvious that his intent is that the name is derived from the word chur (a hole), since the serpent dwells in a lair in the ground. Now the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Abraham [the land of] the Rephaim in general,¹⁷⁰ and Moses mentioned to Israel “the Hivite”²¹⁰ which was the first name by which his father [Canaan] called him,¹⁸⁷ for the land of Rephaim was already divided in the days of Moses and parts of it [i.e., that belonging to Moab, Ammon, and the children of Esau] were forbidden to Israel. Thus Scripture comes here to mention the subject of the entire land of the Hivites, who are Rephaim, and all that was done with it. First it states²²⁰ that the Emim were also of the Rephaim and the Moabites succeeded them. Then it states²²¹ that the children of Esau succeeded the Horites, who were also of the Rephaim. And then it repeats²²² that the land of Ammon was also the land of Rephaim, and all this was forbidden to Israel. He also narrated²²³ that the Caphtorim who came from Caphtor took part of their land [i.e., of the Avim who are also Rephaim] and that [on account of the Caphtorim’s prior conquest] it was permissible for Israel. Thus Joshua mentioned [to the children of Joseph] the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim²²⁴ [wherein they were to settle]. However, Rashi wrote:²²⁵ “The Avim were of the Philistine people,²²⁶, Verse 6). But only the land of the children of Canaan was given to Abraham. How Rashi’s opinion affects the subject under consideration will be made clear in the text which follows. for they are enumerated together with them in the Book of Joshua: [the five lords of the Philistines:] the Gazite, and the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, and the Ekronite, also the Avim.¹⁸⁴ But, because of the oath that Abraham had sworn to Abimelech,²²⁷, 21:24. Israel could not go into their land to remove them from their territory. Therefore, I brought upon them the Caphtorim and they destroyed them [i.e., the Avim who were Philistines] and they dwelled in their stead; now you are permitted to take it from them [i.e., the Caphtorim].” But the intent of Rashi’s words are not clear to me. For Scripture [in the verse from Joshua quoted above]¹⁸⁴ does not enumerate the Avim among the Philistines; instead it refers to the five lords of the Philistines¹⁸⁴ and lists them — and then mentions the Avim as a separate people. The verse states that from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward¹⁸⁴ — all this is accounted the land of Canaan; [the lands of] the five lords of the Philistines that it lists, with the Avim who are another people. But according to the Rabbi [Rashi] the land of the Avim became permissible to Israel because the Caphtorim had taken it from them, but who made permissible [the lands of] the other lords of the Philistines?²²⁸ Canaanites and, consequently, their land is permissible to Israel. The same was true of the five lords of the Philistines who had taken the land away from the Canaanites; hence Joshua was permitted to take it from them. All this explains Ramban’s interpretation. Rashi, however, wrote that the Avim were part of the Philistine people, and Verse 23 before us informs us that their land was made permissible to Israel because the Caphtorim had taken it from them. On this Ramban asks: if so, what made the lands of the five lords of the Philistines permissible to Israel? There are other questions as well, which Ramban raises on Rashi’s interpretation. And why did the Israelites conquer all of them, for Joshua was the one who suppressed the Philistines and the Avim! Moreover, [according to Rashi] why should the land of the Philistines belong to Abraham altogether and why did Abimelech find it necessary to make his covenant [with Abraham]²²⁷, 21:24. in this matter, when the Philistines are of the children of Mitzraim,²²⁹ and so were the Caphtorim,²²⁹ and they were not of the ten nations [given to Abraham]?²³⁰, 15:19-21. — The question on Rashi is thus made all the stronger: If the Avim and the Caphtorim were Philistines, why should the land of the Avim have become permissible to Israel as a result of its conquest by the Caphtorim? Whichever of the two held the land, it was a Philistine possession and Philistia was not permissible to Israel. But the [fact of the] matter is the opposite! For the Caphtorim and the Philistines [children of Mitzraim] destroyed the Canaanites, as indicated by the fact that Abimelech [a Philistine, not a Canaanite] was the king of Gerar, [indicating that the Canaanites had been driven out],²³¹, 20:2. and the Gazite dwelled in Gaza, and Zidon was a Philistine city. All these were part of the Canaanite territories, as it is said, And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza.²³², 10:19. Now it appears to me that the Philistines and Caphtorim [children of Mitzraim] were considered one people, and so Scripture states, For the Eternal will spoil the Philistines, the remnant of the isle of Caphtor.²³³ And this is the sense of the expression [in the verse before us], the Caphtorim that came forth out of Caphtor. It was out of Caphtor that a small [band of] people came forth to sojourn where they could find a place.²³⁴ They destroyed the Avim who were of the seed of Canaan that dwelled as far as Gaza, and the Caphtorim dwelled in their stead in Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron — all these places being within the borders of the land of Canaan and they divided it among their five lords. The name of these districts was Philistia and they were called Philistines. The Avim were left with the remainder of their land as Joshua mentioned.²³⁵ According to Ramban this indicates that the Philistines [who are identical with the Caphtorim, as explained] took but part of the land of the Avim [as stated in Verse 23 before us] while the Avim were still left with part of their land. Now, since the Avim are identical with the Hivites who were of the children of Canaan, Joshua was permitted to take the entire original land of the Avim — what had been conquered by the five lords of the Philistines, as well as what was still in the hands of the Avim. It is this which is meant by the verse the Philistines, the remnant of the isle of Caphtor,²³³ for the Caphtorim were Philistines. This is also the meaning of the expression, whence went forth the Philistines and the Caphtorim,²³⁶ as I have explained there.²³⁷, Vol. I, pp. 149-150. As to what Scripture states, *Have I not brought up Israel out of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?*²³⁸ — [which would seem to indicate that the Philistines were a separate nation that was redeemed from Caphtor just as Israel was a separate nation that was redeemed from Egypt — thus contradicting Ramban’s thesis that the Philistines and the Caphtorim were one nation — the explanation is as follows:] The verse there is speaking of the wars of the Eternal. It was He Who brought up Israel from the land of Egypt by signs, and by wonders, and by war,²³⁹ and He brought up the Philistines from Caphtor, their land, because He brought them forth from there, to deliver unto them the Avim through a great miracle and they destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead [as stated in Verse 23 before us] and they left the land of Caphtor to their brothers.²⁴⁰ Or the matter may have been as I have mentioned, that the Avim, the children of Canaan who first dwelled in the land, were known as Philistines because the name of the land was Philistia. When the Caphtorim that came forth out of Caphtor subdued them, they exiled some of them to their land Caphtor which was part of the land of Egypt, settling them among their brothers [the Caphtorim]. G-d redeemed them [i.e., the Avim who were known as Philistines] from there and they returned to their original place [in the land of Canaan]. We know not in which generation this happened. Thus the Philistines were inhabitants of the land of Canaan, and, therefore, Scripture states, The word of the Eternal is against you, O Canaan, the land of the Philistines; I will even destroy thee, that there shall be no inhabitant.²⁴¹ And so Israel did not drive out the Philistines until the time of the oath had expired, when three generations²⁴² [Abraham] wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son (Genesis 21:23). of Philistines in that land of Abimelech had died. And so the Rabbis have said in the Midrash:²⁴³ 1. “*For that was ‘near,’*²⁴⁴ [meaning] the oath which Abraham had sworn to Abimelech was yet ‘near’ [i.e., was still in effect, because] his grandson was still living” [and therefore G-d did not lead the people through Philistia after the exodus from Egypt]. This is a fitting and correct interpretation of this subject. However, in the Gemara [of Tractate Chullin] in the Chapter V’eilu Treifoth²⁴⁵” among cattle. It is the third chapter of Tractate Chullin. The text quoted is on 60b. the Rabbis have cited an opinion in a dispute agreeing with the words of Rashi [that the Avim were Philistines]. Rav²⁴⁶ in Babylon, laid the foundation for the great Yeshivoth in Babylon. He was a pupil of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, also called Rabbeinu Hakadosh, the redactor of the Mishnah in Eretz Yisrael. Rav returned to his native Babylon where he founded the Academy of Sura which existed for about eight hundred years without interruption. His real name was Abba, but because of the great respect accorded to him he was called “Rav,” as Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi was called simply “Rabbi.” said there that the Avim came from Teman, and we learned a Beraitha²⁴⁷ that concurs with him. Teman is of the seed of Edom, as it is written, *Of Edom, thus said the Eternal of hosts: Is wisdom no more in Teman?*²⁴⁸ This is possible, and, [if so] Scripture is stating of the Avim, who are of the children of Esau, [that] part of their land was made permissible [to Israel] through the Caphtorim [who took it from the Avim], just as [parts of the lands of] Ammon and Moab were made permissible by Sihon [conquering them]. And what I have written is good and upright.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ Leviticus 25:31. ¹⁸¹ Genesis 10:19. ¹⁸² Ibid. ¹⁸³ Ibid. ¹⁸⁴ Joshua 13:3. ¹⁸⁵ Ramban will later explain that the Avim are identical with the Hivites, and of the Hivites it is clearly written that they were of the children of Canaan (Genesis 10:17). ¹⁸¹ Genesis 10:19. ¹⁸⁶ Joel 4:4. ¹⁸⁷ Genesis 10:15-17. ¹⁸⁸ Indicated by the name Chivim ¹⁸⁹ This suggests the name Avim ¹⁹⁰ Bereshith Rabbah 26:17. ¹⁹¹ Berachoth 19. ¹⁹² So found in Aruch Hashalem, under the term chachan ¹⁹³ Vayikra Rabbah 30:3. ¹⁹⁴ II Chronicles 33:13. ¹⁹⁵ The text refers to Menasheh, king of Judah, who for a long time worshipped the idols. When the Assyrians came and carried him off to Babylon and placed him in an oven heated from below, Menasheh began calling upon idol after idol to rescue him. When no help came he turned his supplication to G-d. The attribute of mercy prevented Menasheh’s repentance from being accepted because he had lived so wicked a life, but the Holy One, blessed be He, “made an opening” in the Throne of His Glory “and received his prayer” (Sanhedrin 103a). The verse concludes, He brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom ¹⁹⁶ Eichah Rabbathi 2:2. ¹⁹⁷ This is generally explained as being of the word av ¹⁹⁸ Lamentations 2:2. ¹⁹⁹ Vayikra Rabbah, 9:1: “The prince of the kingdom of Babylon ascended seventy avkim ²⁰⁰ In this exact form I have not found the source for the statement. However, in Moed Katan 16b, and in Kerithoth 8a we do find Rabbi Chiya being referred to as “Iya.” ²⁰¹ See my Hebrew commentary p. 354, Note 2, for a number of such references. ²⁰² Tahoroth 7:8. ²⁰³ Joel 4:11. The commentators referred to, are Menachem ben Saruk and Rashi. ²⁰⁴ Mechilta, Pis’cha ²⁰⁵ Exodus 12:13. ²⁰⁶ Verse 22. ²⁰⁷ Bereshith Rabbah 26:16. ²⁰⁸ Genesis 6:4. ²⁰⁹ Bereshith Rabbah 44:27. ²¹⁰ Further, 7:1. ²¹¹ Genesis 15:20-21. ²¹² Genesis 15:20. ²¹³ Ibid. ²⁰⁹ Bereshith Rabbah 44:27. ²¹⁴ Further, 19:8. ¹⁸⁷ Genesis 10:15-17. ²¹⁵ Isaiah 11:8. ²¹⁶ Job 26:5. ²¹⁷ Isaiah 26:19. ²¹⁸ Genesis 10:18. ²¹⁹ Ramban refers to his explanation above that the letters cheth ¹⁷⁰ Genesis 15:20. ²¹⁰ Further, 7:1. ¹⁸⁷ Genesis 10:15-17. ²²⁰ Above, Verses 10-11. ²²¹ Verse 12. ²²² Verses 20-21. ²²³ Verse 23. ²²⁴ Joshua 17:15. ²²⁵ On Verse 23 before us. ²²⁶ The Philistines were descendants of Mitzraim (Genesis 10:14). Thus, while according to Ramban, as explained above, the Avim who are identical with the Hivites and Rephaim were descendants of Canaan whose land was permissible to Israel, Rashi holds the Avim to have been part of the Philistines who were descendants of Mitzraim. Now, both Mitzraim and Canaan were sons of Ham (ibid. ¹⁸⁴ Joshua 13:3. ²²⁷ Ibid. ¹⁸⁴ Joshua 13:3. ¹⁸⁴ Joshua 13:3. ¹⁸⁴ Joshua 13:3. ²²⁸ But according to Ramban, as explained at the beginning of this verse, the Philistines had taken their land from the children of Canaan, all of whose lands were given to Abraham. Since the Avim [identical with the Hivite who is mentioned in Genesis 10:17 as a son of Canaan] were one of the ten children of Canaan, it is self-understood that their land was permissible to Israel. Verse 23 here, telling that the Caphtorim [who were of the children of Mitzraim, like the Philistines — Genesis 10:14] destroyed the Avim, serves the purpose of informing Israel that they should not be misled into thinking that the land is forbidden to them because the Caphtorim were not descended from Canaan. Therefore, the verse informs us that the Caphtorim had taken it from the Avim who are ²²⁷ Ibid. ²²⁹ Genesis 10:13-14. ²²⁹ Genesis 10:13-14. ²³⁰ Ibid. ²³¹ Ibid. ²³² Ibid. ²³³ Jeremiah 47:4. ²³⁴ Judges 17:8. ²³⁵ This refers to Joshua 13:3 [quoted above] where, after mentioning the five lords of the Philistines, he cites ‘also the Avim.’ ²³³ Jeremiah 47:4. ²³⁶ Genesis 10:14. ²³⁷ Ibid. ²³⁸ Amos 9:7. ²³⁹ Further, 4:34. ²⁴⁰ Thus it is again established that the Caphtorim are identical with the Philistines, as they were one people. ²⁴¹ Zephaniah 2:5. ²⁴² The oath was specifically limited to three generations: Now therefore swear unto me here by G-d that thou ²⁴³ Tanchuma, Beshalach ²⁴⁴ Exodus 13:17. ²⁴⁵ “These are accounted treifah ²⁴⁶ Rav, the leading teacher in the first generation of Amoraim ²⁴⁷ See Vol. II, p. 133, Note 209. ²⁴⁸ Jeremiah 49:7.

BEHOLD, I HAVE GIVEN INTO THY HAND SIHON. This statement is the same as the one stated below, Behold, I have begun to deliver up Sihon.²⁴⁹ Before that, Moses sent to him [Sihon] messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth,²⁵⁰ G-d’s command to him to begin the battle against Sihon as stated in Verse 24. but after G-d had commanded him, [Moses, in Verse 24 before us,] begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle he would no longer send him *words of peace, saying: ‘Let me pass through thy land.’*²⁵¹ For if Sihon were to hearken to him, Moses would have been transgressing the words of G-d [by not waging war against Sihon as he had been commanded in Verse 24], and if Moses knew in advance that Sihon would not hearken, his message would have been pointless. [Therefore, we must say that Moses’ message to Sihon, as stated in Verses 26-29, was sent before G-d’s command here in Verse 24.] Now, do not think of saying [that Moses’ message of peace] is in accordance with the commandment wherein we have been charged, When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it²⁵² [and, therefore, you might think that even after G-d told Moses to begin to possess Sihon’s land he was still obligated to send the message of peace, here recorded in Verses 26-29 — that is not the case]. For [in the injunction to call for peace] it is written, And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve you.²⁵³, Verse 11. Here, however, if Sihon had hearkened to them, they would not have touched him at all. But the meaning of the expression, and I sent messengers,²⁵⁰ G-d’s command to him to begin the battle against Sihon as stated in Verse 24. is that “I had already sent messengers.” Moses, however, introduced the words of G-d [to begin contending with Sihon in battle with the fact that he sent a message of peace] in order to explain for the Eternal thy G-d hardened his spirit²⁵⁴ [a hardening of the spirit that took place following Moses’ earlier message when Sihon could have seized the opportunity to make peace], meaning to say that it was all caused by G-d, for so He told me.

footnotes: ²⁴⁹ Further, Verse 31. ²⁵⁰ Verse 26. Ramban is thus stating that Verses 26-29 [recording Moses’ proposal for a peaceful passage through Sihon’s land] actually took place before ²⁵¹ Verses 26-27. ²⁵² Further, 20:10. ²⁵³ Ibid. ²⁵⁰ Verse 26. Ramban is thus stating that Verses 26-29 [recording Moses’ proposal for a peaceful passage through Sihon’s land] actually took place before ²⁵⁴ Verse 30.

THIS DAY WILL I BEGIN TO PUT THE DREAD OF THEE. This refers to Israel, meaning that all the peoples should fear them, and that the men of Canaan should go out [in battle] against them with melted hearts. G-d hardened their spirits, however, and they said, “Our death through their sword is preferable to being slaves to them.” For what sense is there to say of Moses, This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the peoples that are under the whole heaven, [meaning that the nations would fear Moses personally] when Moses would fight only with these two kings [Sihon and Og]? Rather, this is a promise to Israel and Joshua, as he said to Joshua, Thine eyes have seen.²⁵⁵ This then is the purport of the expression ‘Begin’ to possess his land²⁵⁶ [meaning that Moses was to make the beginning of the conquest — but the task is to be finished by Joshua and Israel].

footnotes: ²⁵⁵ Further, 3:21. ²⁵⁶ Verse 31.

AND WE UTTERLY DESTROYED EVERY CITY, THE MEN, AND THE WOMEN, AND THE LITTLE ONES — who were of the Amorites, and they were commanded thereon, as it is said, But of the cities of these peoples, that the Eternal thy G-d giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.²⁵⁷ Even so, Moses opened discussions with them peacefully, for such is the commandment [that even for the seven nations we were obligated to proclaim peace to them] as I will explain with the help of G-d.²⁵² But to Og the king of Bashan he did not proclaim peace because Og had come forth to battle against Israel before they even came to his city.²⁵⁸ (above, 3:1). I have already explained the subject in the section Zoth Chukath.²⁵⁹

footnotes: ²⁵⁷ Further, 20:16. ²⁵² Further, 20:10. ²⁵⁸ This is clearly indicated in Scripture: Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan, and Og, the king of Bashan came out against us ²⁵⁹ Numbers 21:21.