He heard that Aharon died and [the clouds of glory] departed. You might ask: What is Rashi’s source for this? Perhaps [the explanation of the verse] is like its plain understanding, that it was because “Yisroel had come…” as the verse continues. The answer is that Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “He heard”? It should have merely said “Yisroel came by the route of the spies and the Cannanite King of Arad came and attacked…” As the Torah writes (Shemos 17:8) “Amalek came and attacked Yisroel” and (Bamidbar 21:23) “[They] went out against Yisroel to the wilderness; he came to Yohatz and attacked Yisroel.” Similarly it says regarding Og (ibid. v. 33), “He came out against Yisroel, [he with all his people] to wage war at Edre’i.” Rather, it was because they heard that Aharon died and the Clouds of Glory departed. Furthermore one can answer that Rashi’s proof is from Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 33:40) where it is written, “The Canaanites heard…after Aharon’s death.” There it is clear that it was only because they had heard that Aharon had died and that the Divine Presence had departed from Yisroel. Rashi explains on that verse, “From here you learn…” The words, “From here” imply that he is explaining that his proof is from there, as I will explain there. Re’m explains: It is written above וַיִּרְאוּ כל העדה ["The entire community saw…"] (20:29) and Rabbi Abahu says (Rosh Hashanah 3a): Read this as וַיֵרְאוּ ["and they feared"] with a tzerei under the yud in accordance with Reish Lakish who says that here the word כי [translated in 20:29 as "that" but sometimes meaning "because"] comes to explain the matter that precedes it. [Consequently it means that they were fearful] since the community had become vulnerable because of Aharon’s death. It appears that this was why Rashi reversed the order of the verse and explained (20:29) “that [Aharon] had died” after “the entire community of Yisroel” in order to juxtapose it to the comment, “And the Canaanite heard.” R. Yaakov Triosh.

This was Amalek. Rashi explains this so that you should not pose the difficulty that the verse is contradictory, for it is written, “The Canaanite [king] heard” and afterwards it is written “who lived in the south” which refers to Amalek. [To resolve the difficulty] he explains, “They changed…”

The great pathfinder. This refers to the Ark, meaning that once they saw that the Clouds of Glory had departed and [the Israelites] only had the Holy Ark traveling before them, they came to attack, something that they had not done previously. Re’m. The other interpretation was necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why is it written, “The route of the spies.” Did the spies establish that route? Surely it had been established for anyone to pass through. Therefore Rashi brought the other interpretation. Accordingly, Rashi brings the other interpretation and as Re’m explains, that it was because only the Ark traveled before them, but the Clouds of Glory had departed that [the Amalekites] came to attack. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why the Torah writes האתרים in the plural form, since it was referring only to the Holy Ark [which is singular]. Therefore Rashi also brings the first interpretation.

One maidservant. Rashi had to explain so because the Rabbis state that Yisroel can only be defeated at a time when they act corruptly before Hashem. But here we do not find any corrupt behavior. Therefore he says that the captive who was taken here was merely the captive whom Yisroel captured from them. We need not ask how Rashi knew that there was only one, when perhaps there were two. For one can answer that the term שבי ["captive"] implies that there was only one. You might also ask how Rashi knew that the captive was a maidservant. The answer is that the term שבי implies a maidservant. For in Parshas Bo concerning the warning [before the tenth plague] it is written, “From the firstborn of Pharoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the maidservant…” (Shemos 11:5). Whereas later, when the plague struck, it is written “Until the firstborn of the שבי [captive]” (Shemos 12:29). Thus one must explain that שבי there refers to the firstborn of the maidservant and therefore the word שבי written here also refers to a maidservant. For if not so, Scripture should have clarified [whether] he took men, women or children from them.

I shall consecrate the spoils. For if [it is explained] like the plain understanding [implying destruction], what kind of vow would it be to destroy their cities? Surely a plain vow to Hashem refers to consecration of property. Rather this expression means, “I shall consecrate…” Rashi comments further (v. 3), that according to this explanation that ויחרם refers to consecration to heaven, it would not be appropriate to say this in reference to people, as the verse continues “them and their cities.” Therefore Rashi explains that when [ויחרם] refers to people it is in the sense of killing [them], but when it refers to cities it is in the sense of consecration to heaven.

Since Aharon had died… Rashi is answering the question: What is meant by “they traveled from Mount Hor by the Reed Sea route…”? Surely before they came to Mount Hor they were circling around the land of Edom, as it is written “Edom refused…” (above 20:21). Thus it is evident that they had already turned back [in order to circle around Edom]. So why does it say now that they turned back? Rashi answers that “since Aharon died….”

But they returned there … and eulogized him. You might ask: Why did they eulogize him at Moseirah? The answer is that in Parshas Pinchos (Bamidbar 26:13) and Parshas Eikev (Devarim 10:6) Rashi explains why they eulogized him at Moseirah. This is the essence of his words: When they returned to Moseirah, the Levites chased after them until Moseirah and killed several families, as Rashi explains in Parshas Pinchos. Thus they eulogized him there because it was due to Aharon’s death that the Clouds of Glory departed from them, leading the Canaanites to hear and come to attack them. This caused them to return to Moseirah, and because they returned, several families were killed. Consequently they eulogized him there, given that it was due to his death that all of these events befell them, as I explained. The reason why here Rashi explains that they turned back seven journeys, while in Parshas Pinchos he explains that they turned back eight journeys is explained elsewhere (Bamidbar 26:13). Here it means aside from the last journey there were seven journeys.

The manna will eventually swell. Rashi explains “it will swell” because the Torah writes הקלוקל ["this rotten"] with a cholam, which literally implies a sense of decay. This was why they said that it would swell in their stomachs. When he explains that it was absorbed into the limbs, this was because it is written קלקל in the shortened form [without a vav] which implies the sense of קל ["light"], implying that one did not have to digest it. (Nachalas Yaakov) This is Rashi’s comment from Avodah Zarah 5a: “With this rotten bread — this is the manna because it was absorbed into their limbs and not excreted they called it rotten…” From there one sees that it is in the sense of lightness, similar to ירקרק or אדמדם ["yellowish" or "reddish" which are variations on the words ירק ["yellow"] and אדום ["red"] formed by doubling the root]. [It appears that] Re’m overlooked this Rashi.

Can anyone … without excreting. You might ask: Is it not written (Devarim 23:14), “You shall have a shovel aside from your weapons, and it shall be when you sit outside…”? From there it seems that they did excrete. The answer is that they excreted [food] purchased from the merchants [not the manna].

That consume. Meaning that השרפים ["the consuming"] is a description of the snakes that are mentioned in the verse, meaning “the snakes that consume.” Not that this was a species of snake such as שרף מעופף ["a flying seraph" (Yeshayahu 14:29)] or נחש שרף ועקרב ["snake, saraph and scorpion" (Devarim 8:15)]. For if this were so the verse should have said והשרפים ["andthe seraphim"]. [One might ask:] It is written, (v. 8) “Make yourself a שרף ["consuming snake"]” which implies that it was a species of snake called the saraph. The answer is that it means “make for yourself a consuming snake” for we find something similar [that an adjective implies a subject that is not stated explicitly in the verse] where מאכלו בריא ["his food is healthy"] (Chabakuk 1:16), refers to a healthy sheep.

Because it is [held high] … it is called a banner. Meaning that it is usual for one to signal with a pole by the placement of a signal on it, given that a pole is high, therefore a pole is called a banner.

Even if a dog. For if this were not so, why was it necessary to write כל ["anyone"], surely it should have merely written “one bitten.”

Deteriorate. In the sense of becoming ill, meaning that the body progressively shriveled and he did not die immediately. (Bava Kamma 52).

Can a snake bring death … and subjugated their hearts… (Kitzur Mizrochi) You might ask: If so, why did Hashem tell Moshe to make the snake given that it was dependant upon whether they directed [their hearts etc.]? Ramban has already answered that it was a miracle within a miracle, because when one has been injured by something it is normally dangerous for him to see or to gaze at it. Furthermore, doctors are careful not to mention the thing that caused the injury in front of him. However Hashem said that “anyone bitten will look at it and live” which is contrary to nature, to teach that it is not the snake that brings death, rather it is sin that brings death. (Gur Aryeh) writes that He commanded Moshe to place it on the banner in order that they would look upward, for then it would be impossible for one not to direct his heart toward heaven concerning this matter and to see who had brought it about. Accordingly when Hashem said [specifically] to make a snake, this was because when one sees the thing that injured him fear overtakes him. Consequently he concentrates more in prayer over the thing that injured him when he sees it before his eyes.

Snake. Ramban writes: I do not understand this, for surely Hashem only said “Make yourself a שרף ["snake"].” Rather they mean that Moshe followed the essential name. His answer appears to be that since the essential name that Hashem gave to the snake was נחש [nachash]. Why then was it called שרף here? Consequently, Moshe said [to himself] “Hashem is surely hinting to me by referring to it with a descriptive name and not the essential name,” in order to make the snake from copper [nachash nechoshes], so that it [also] alludes to the essential name.

I do not know. Meaning, I do not know why this place was called “the wasteland passes.” However I do know the meaning of עיי as Rashi explains.

With a broom. Meaning swept with a broom. This is in the sense of יעים ["scoops"] (Bamidbar 4:14) with which one sweeps out ashes.

For those crossing Mount Nevo. Rashi is answering the question: The term “passes” implies a point they are crossing over to another area, but to where were they crossing over? He answers that “This was the passage route for those crossing Mount Nevo…” because in Parshas Haazinu (Devarim 32:49) it is also written, “This [mountain] pass, Mount Nevo.”

The edge of [their] border. Rashi was obliged to explain that this refers to a border and is not in the sense of a territory [the word גבול ["border"] sometimes includes the territory enclosed by the border]. For if it was the territory of the Emorites then it could not be the territory of the Moavites, and if it was the territory of the Moavites then it could not be the territory of the Emorites. However a border can be a boundary for both.

Concerning this encampment. Meaning, concerning the miracles performed in this encampment. [The Sifsei Chachamim proceeds to explain the somewhat cryptic language used in the next two verses:] The meaning of בספר ["in the book"] is “In the book of stories.” The meaning of והב ["gave"] is יהב which means “gave.” The meaning of בסופה ["at the reeds"] is “at the Reed Sea.” The meaning of ואת הנחלים ["and the valleys"] is “the miracles of the valleys.” The meaning of ארנון ["Arnon"] is “of Arnon.” The meaning of ואשד is “spillage.” The meaning of ואשד הנחלים is that it is a description of “the valleys of Arnon.” The meaning of אשר נטה ["when it turned…"] is that the Mountain at Ar was uprooted from its place.

When the Israelites came to pass through, the Eretz Yisroel mountain was set in tremor. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: The mountain should have returned to its place immediately, such that the Israelites would have seen the dead in the valley. Why then did the mountain only return to its place after they had passed through? The answer is that it is not proper for one who receives his master to return to his place until his master passes, therefore [the mountain] did not return to its place until the Israelites had passed. Kitzur Mizrochi raises a difficulty: We need not ask that surely the cloud went before them, flattening any heights and raising any low places, and as a result the mountain should have returned immediately. Here we cannot answer that the cloud had already departed at Aharon’s death, for the Gemara in Maseches Taanis (9a) states that it returned in the merit of Moshe. Nonetheless, this is not a difficulty because the cloud traveled three days journey ahead of them, thus it is possible that at the time of passing through, the mountain had not yet accomplished its task of killing those who gathered there. Consequently the cloud did not level out the mountain.

From within the valley. Rashi says “from within the valley” because one always arises from a low place to a higher place. And because the meaning of the word “arise” was not that it would come up, rather that the limbs would come forth so that Yisroel should be aware of the miracles that were done for them, Rashi added the words “and lift…” Nonetheless, since by arising it would lift up, the Torah wrote עלי ["arise"] rather than העלי ["lift"].

Was it from there? Meaning: The Torah says (v. 18), “From the wilderness as a gift,” meaning that it was given to them at the time they came into the wilderness.

As there Moshe died. Meaning: Since it mentioned here (v. 19), “The gift [traveled] to the valley” it also mentioned that the well traveled on to the heights, and from the heights to the valley, even though these journeys had not yet happened. Once the well is mentioned here, the Torah relates everything about it. Consequently, once we see that [after the valley] it did not travel any further with them, Rashi gives the reason for this saying “Moshe died there and it was discontinued.” Re’m

And there the well was discontinued. You might ask: Was the well not discontinued when Miriam died, as stated above (20:2)? The answer is that it returned in the merit of Moshe, and when he died, it [permanently] stopped (Taanis 9a).

Why is Moshe not mentioned… You might ask: Above, immediately in the beginning of the song “It was then that Yisroel sang” (v. 17). Rashi should have asked why Moshe was not mentioned as well. The answer is that one might have thought that it was because he sinned at the well, as it is written above that he struck the rock (20:11). Consequently [one would say that] the Torah did not wish to mention him in this song which refers to the well, as Rashi explains. However now that he explains that במחוקק ["through the lawgiver"] refers to Moshe, [Rashi asks] why Moshe was not mentioned explicitly in the song.

That peak. Because we cannot say that it refers to the valley, given that גיא ["valley"] is in the masculine form while ונשקפה ["that overlooks"] is in the feminine form.

Another interpretation: The well may be seen. Because באר ["well"] is in the feminine form. The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that the entire passage deals with the well, so how could one explain that ונשקפה ["that overlooks"] refers to the peak? Consequently Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty that it should have said ונשקפה מן הישימון ["that looks out from the wastelands"], but what is the meaning of על פני ["over the wastelands"]? Consequently Rashi brings the first reason also.

Although they were not commanded… Meaning that although they were not commanded to do so, they made this request since they only wished to make a temporary traversal [of the land]. It was not similar to the surrounding cities where the Torah forbade [them to make peace] (see Devarim 20:16-17). Re’m, Nachalas Yaakov, Gur Aryeh and Divrei Dovid all raise the difficulty that surely Sichon was king of the Emorites and thus included among the seven nations. Therefore, why did they offer a peace overture given that in reference to the seven nations the Torah writes, “You shall not allow any soul to live” (ibid.)? The answer is that even in the Land of Israel itself, the prohibition, “You shall not allow any soul to live” only applies once they had already begun the war. Thus when it is taught that Yehoshua sent three messages to the Land of Israel, the first of which was “whoever wishes to make peace, come and make peace” it was before they had begun the war.

Delivered tribute to him. For if not so, surely they only requested to pass through their land. [Thus it is understandable that] Sichon did not allow them to pass, but why did he go out to fight against them? (Nachalas Yaakov, Gur Aryeh and Kitzur Mizrochi) Rashi needed this answer to explain [a difficulty:] It was understandable that the king of Edom would dispute the inheritance of the Land of Israel, being certain [of his strength] due to the assurance of his ancestor, and also because they sent an appeasing message, “Let us please pass” in terms of a request. However regarding Sichon there is the difficulty as to why he was so confident? Surely it would have been better for him not to wage war with Yisroel. Therefore Rashi answers that “all the Canaanite kings delivered tribute to him.”

Why should I inconvenience… Rashi is answering the question: Why did Sichon go out against them to wage war? Surely he had no reason to fear given that even “if the city of Cheshbon had been filled with gnats…” and similarly “if Sichon had been alone in a village…” Furthermore the verse continues, “And he gathered all of his people.” This implies [that he gathered] all of the people in the land, but this was not proper practice. On the contrary he should have brought all his troops into the cities in order to protect them. Thus Rashi explains “The Holy One Blessed Is He said…”

Cheshbon under Sichon’s name. “May it be built and established” refers to Cheshbon mentioned above, not to “as the city of Sichon.” For after he had conquered and taken possession of it, what need was there to say “may it be built and established”? Rather, this is what the parable tellers were saying: Sichon and his people come to the city of Cheshbon, for you can overcome it, given that from the beginning when it was built it was established as the city of Sichon. It was built under Sichon’s name, meaning that from then it was already decreed to be the city of Sichon. Thus “May it be built and established” is in the future tense in place of the past tense.

After Sichon conquered it. But not beforehand, for if so, it should have said “A fire came to Cheshbon.”

Ar, belonging to Moav. Rashi says this so that you should not think that ער ["Ar"] was in the sense of עיר ["city"]. This would be similar to דם ["blood"] the plural form of which is דמים; so too, the plural form of ער would be ערים ["cities"]. Thus ער would be the general title for all of Moav’s cities. However this would not be possible because Moav still had many cities which they ruled over. Furthermore it cannot refer to one of their cities because if so, Scripture should have mentioned which city, as is its usual practice, given that it does not come to conceal but rather to explain. Rashi brings a proof from the [Onkelos’s] translation which is לחיית [the proper noun "Lechayas"] rather than קרתא ["city"]. Re’m writes: It appears to me that this was Rashi’s intention: The proper name of a city is not normally used in the construct form [semichus, as here where two nouns are juxtaposed indicating possession], and given that Ar is the proper name of a country, it should not have been used in the construct form. Because of this question one might have felt forced to explain that ער is in the sense of עיר ["city"]. However, [Rashi indicates that] one should not explain so, given that it is preferable to explain that it was an individual city which was placed in the construct form, although this is not typical. [This is preferable] rather than explaining that it is in the sense of “city,” due to the difficulties that this would entail.

That he be delivered into his hands. Meaning that this verse is related to, “May it be built and established” (v. 27), as if to say that since the city was built for Sichon, ultimately it would be handed over to him.

As far as Divon. Rashi explains that עד ["as far as"] is in the sense of סר ["removed"] as if to say “the kingdom was removed from Divon” because one cannot explain אבד חשבון עד דיבון like the simple understanding that the entire area from Cheshbon as far as Divon was uprooted. For if so, the word ונירם, which means “their kingdom,” would not be connected to what comes before or after it. However, according to Rashi’s explanation it is as if it is written “their kingdom in Cheshbon was uprooted and their kingdom in Divon was removed.”

The spies captured it. Since it is written “they captured its surrounding villages” with וילכדו ["theycaptured"] in the plural form, rather than וילכד ["he captured"] in the singular form, as it does shortly where it is written ויורש ["and heinherited"] in the singular. Rather [this implies that] the spies captured the surrounding villages.

Moshe was afraid [to do battle] that perhaps the merit… For if not so, why was Og any different from Sichon? Regarding Sichon, Hashem did not say “do not be afraid of him.” You might ask: Surely Og’s intentions were purely evil, [namely] that Avrohom would be killed and he would marry Sarah, as Rashi explains in Parshas Lech Lecha on the verse, “The one who had escaped came…” (Bereishis 14:13). The answer is that nonetheless, since the merit of saving Lot came through his hand, Moshe was afraid that this merit might stand for him, even though his intentions were evil. Similarly we say (Horiyos 10b) that in the merit of the sacrifices that Balak offered, he merited that Rus [Ruth] would come from him, even though his intentions were evil. This was because he offered them in honor of Hashem.