Had they not sinned, etc. Meaning: Due to their sin, Hashem did not manipulate the King of Edom’s heart to allow them to pass through his land.

The route they traveled when leaving Egypt, etc. Rashi is answering the question: “By way of the Reed Sea,” implies that they traveled from north to south, along the Reed Sea. Yet, they traveled from west to east in the wilderness! For this reason, Rashi explains: “The route they traveled when leaving Egypt,” i.e., when they left Egypt, they traveled diagonally towards the Reed Sea from west to east. Now, also, they traveled in the same direction, for they abandoned traveling the shorter route from south to north. Instead they traveled along the southern border of Edom, from west to east, until they came to the border of Moav.

[We traversed] its entire southern rim. One should not say that they circled Mount Seir on all four sides, and this is not possible. For otherwise Moshe would have entered the Land of Israel, because the land of Edom is on the border of the Land of Israel, as explained in the demarcation of the Land’s borders (Bamidbar 34:3). Therefore, Rashi explains: Only its entire southern rim, until the land of Moav (Maharan).

Turn yourselves towards the eastern side, etc. This command was given when they were at the end of the southern border of Edom. If so, it contradicts Rashi’s explanation in Parshas Masai (Bamidbar 34:3), that they first turned northward after they had traversed the southern border of Moav. [The answer is:] Nevertheless, Moshe had [first] requested from the king of Edom to travel northward through his land, but he refused. [And therefore] afterwards they needed to traverse the entire southern border of Moav, and then they turned northward (Re”m). But it seems to me as follows: The original intention of, “Turn yourself northward,” was to turn northward after coming to the end of Moav’s border. This is explained in the verses following. And when they came to the border of Edom it says, “Do not incite them (v. 5).” And when they came to the border of Moav and they wanted to pass through their border on the north, Hashem said to them, “Do not besiege Moav (v. 9).” Therefore, it was inevitable that they would have to traverse the entire border of Moav until its eastern side [and then turn northward].

Even as much as a footstep, etc. The word עד means, “Up until — and including.” It is as if Hashem said to them, “I will not permit you to have any control over their land, even as much as a footstep, to just pass through, without their permission. A similar use [of the term עד] is found in the verse (Shemos 14:28) עד אחד (Not one of them).

To pass through their land, unless they grant you permission. Otherwise, there is a difficulty: Why did Moshe ask the king of Edom to let them pass through his land, although Hashem forbade it? Therefore, Rashi explains: “Unless they grant you permission.” But with permission, they were allowed to pass through.

Until the day comes when there will be footsteps, etc. There is a difficulty with the literal interpretation of this verse, for it should have only said, אף מדרך (even a footstep). Why does Scripture use the term עד (until), which denotes a time period? Therefore, Rashi quotes the homiletic explanation.

As a reward for his going along with him [Avrohom] to Egypt, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Hashem promised to give ten nations to Avrohom. Why then did He give these two to Lot? Therefore, Rashi explains: As a reward.

Therefore do not show ingratitude, etc. This verse does not mean to say, “You therefore have no need for Eisov.” Otherwise it should say, “You have much,” or, “You have everything,” [instead of, “you have lacked nothing (in the past)”] (Gur Aryeh). The term, “Your handiworks,” refers to livestock, as it is written (Iyov 1:10), “You have blessed his handiworks, and his livestock has spread over the land.”

We turned our faces to travel, etc. Rashi needed to explain, “We turned northward,” because the verse (3), “Turn yourselves northward,” implies the turning of their heads now. Although they were not commanded to do so until after traversing the entire southern border of Moav, nevertheless, [they attempted to turn northward through the land of Edom, but] after they saw that Edom opposed them, they left and traversed the entire southern border of Moav. Afterwards they turned northward, as they were commanded when they were at the southern border of Edom. Then they traversed the entire eastern border of Moav until reaching the land of Sichon and Og, which was to the east of the Land of Israel, etc. (Re”m).

The only thing He forbid them, etc., war. The verse should only have said, “Do not intimidate them.” Why is, “with war,” needed? For note that regarding the descendants of Ammon it only says below (v. 19), “Do not intimidate them.” Therefore Rashi answers: The only thing He forbids, etc.

But they were permitted to terrify them, etc. I.e., the Jewish People were permitted to terrify the Moabites.

Do not intimidate them in any way, etc. Because [regarding the people of Ammon,] it is not written “With war.”

Who named her son Moav. I.e., מאב (from father), which clearly indicates [her] immoral conduct.

The name of the country. For if ער means the same as עיר (city), then the verse should mention the name of the city.

That I gave to Avrohom, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse need to say, “The Eimim originally lived there, etc.”? Rashi answers: You might think, etc. I.e., One of the seven nations that I gave to Avrohom was called Rephaim. If so you might think this [where Lot’s descendants settled] is the land of Rephaim. I.e., the Eimim who lived there [immediately before Lot’s descendants] were the Rephaim that I gave to Avrohom. But do not think this. Rashi continues to explain, “Because the Eimim, who are actually Rephaim, lived there originally, but the Eimim living there [immediately before Lot’s descendants] were a different people.” I.e., the Eimim that lived there originally, were already driven out [by the second Eimim] in favor of Lot’s descendants and [afterwards] Lot’s descendants settled there. Yet since this was no longer the land of [the original] Rephaim, why was it called “Rephaim”? Rashi explains: “Those Eimim were considered Rephaim.” Yet why were they called Rephaim if they were [actually] the Eimim? Rashi explains: Just as the Anokim were called Rephaim, etc., also the Eimim [were called Rephaim] — because whoever saw them, their hands became weak (rafeh) from fright. And they [the actual Rephaim] were called Eimim because of the people’s fear (eimah) of them, etc. This is how Rashi explains the context of these verses.

I gave them the power, etc. [Although יירשום literally means, “He will drive them out.”] For any present progressive action may be expressed in the future tense or past tense. However, an action referring only to the present, as in (Shemos 15:1) אז ישיר משה (Literally: Then Moshe will sing), must be explained as the thought to take action (Re”m).

To be further delayed in the wilderness. For as long as any of them survived, their children could not enter the Land.

The word וידבר**(He spoke) was not mentioned, only ויאמר (He said).** I.e., the term “He spoke” was not used affectionately, for “He spoke to me” is not mentioned, as it is here. Instead it only said, “He spoke,” which lacks affection (Maharitz). You might ask that, in Parshas Beha’aloscha (Bamidbar 12:1) regarding the verse, “Miriam spoke,” Rashi explains: “Spoke” implies harsh speech — not affection, whereas “said” implies affection. The answer is: Anywhere it is written, “Adonoy spoke,” with the Tetragrammaton, it implies affection. Though it is harsh, it implies affection towards Moshe. But not, “Adonoy said,” for this can mean, “Adonoy said through a messenger.” As in (Bereishis 25:23), “Adonoy said to her,” which was through a messenger. And also as in (Shemos 18:6), “And he said to Moshe, ‘I am your father-in-law Yisro, etc.’” And also as in (Bereishis 48:1), “He said to Yoseif, ‘Behold your father is ill’.” In contrast, “he spoke,” implies affection, for it means, “(to be speaking) face-to-face,” as it says (Bamidbar 12:8), “Face-to-face I speak to him.” Although to any other prophet it would imply harsh speech, regarding Moshe it implies affection, as Hashem said, (ibid. v. 7), “Not so is My servant Moshe, etc.” See Maseches Ta’anis (30b).

That Avrohom swore to Avimelech, etc. Rashi is answering the question: How does, “Arise to travel and cross, etc.” relate to the previous verse? [For Scripture implies:] Since the Caftorim destroyed the Avim and settled in their stead, this is the reason to arise to travel! Rashi answers: “Because of the oath, etc.”

This teaches that the sun stood still, etc. For it is written here, “I begin toplace,” and it says regarding Yehoshua (Yehoshua 10:12), “On the day that Adonoy placed, etc.” Just as the sun stood still over there, so too here, the sun stood still.

Even though the Almighty did not command me, etc. Otherwise, what is the significance of קדמות (precedence)? Rashi comments: “Even though the Almighty did not command me, etc.” This implies that he holds that the verse, “When you near a city [to do battle against it] you are to offer it peace (below 20:10),” refers to an optional war.

Another explanation of “From the wilderness of Kedeimos”: From You I learned, etc. According to the first explanation there is a difficulty: Why does it is written קדמות (precedence)? There are many things that preceded the creation of the world. The verse should have been more specific. Therefore, Rashi says: “Another explanation, etc.” Yet according to the second explanation there is also a difficulty: Why does it say ממדבר (from the wilderness). It fits well if “wilderness” is referring to the Torah, for it was given in the wilderness. But if it is referring to the Almighty, then why does it say “wilderness”? Therefore, both explanations are necessary.

This does not refer to [our] passing through their land, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse writes, “Food for money sell me... just let me cross on foot. As the descendants of Eisov did for me.” This implies that Edom [i.e., Eisov] allowed them to pass through their land. Yet, it is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 20:21), “Edom refused... and the Israelites turned away from them.” For this reason, Rashi explains: “This does not refer to [our] passing through etc.” You might ask: The verse here implies that Moav also sold food and water to them, but in Parshas Ki Teitzei it is written (below 23:4), “Neither an Ammonite nor a Moavite shall enter into the community... because they did not greet you with bread and water.” Re”m answers: Perhaps there is a [significant] difference between קדמו (greeting [with food]) and השבירו (selling food). For the Moavites did not greet them with bread and water, but they did sell food and water to them. But the verse, “they did not greet you,” means without [charging] money. An alternative answer is: The verse means, “Neither an Ammonite nor a Moavite shall enter into the community — Ammon because they did not greet you, and Moav because they hired Bilaam against you, etc.”

This refers to the statement, “Let me pass through [your land].” And not to the statement, “Food for money sell me,” which immediately precedes it. Otherwise, what is the meaning of, “[Sell me food] until I will have crossed the Yardein”? It should say instead, “Until I will have crossed your border,” as it is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 21:22).

He did not send for Og, etc. Because they were powerful.

It (בנו**) is written, etc.** Since בנו lacks the letter yud, it [means “his son” and] implies that Sichon only had one son. Yet, since both syllables are vocalized with a kamatz, it [means “his sons” and] implies that he had many sons. Rather the word בנו indicates that Sichon had one son who was clearly recognizable as his son, for he was as mighty as his father. Therefore, it is written בנו (his son), without a yud. And this verse is informing us that he was killed just as all his other sons were killed.

All along Wadi Yabok. (Literally, “The hand of Wadi Yabok”). Since a person’s hand is always at his side, any edge can be referred to as “hand.” See Parshas Shemos regarding the verse (2:5), “Walking on the edge (יד) of the river.”

Not to capture, we left [uncaptured]. Literally, this verse implies that they did not attack what Hashem had commanded them to attack. Therefore, Rashi explains: “Not to capture, etc.”