האמים לפנים ישבו בה, “in former times the Eymim lived there.” According to Rashi the point Moses is making here is that contrary to a common belief that the land of the Moabites is the land that G’d had promised to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15, where these Eymim had been described as the Refa-im, this is not so, and the Refa-im that lived in the land at that time had not been the original Refa-im, hence the land you knew as being populated by “Refa-im” was not the land promised b G’d to Avraham; therefore dispossessing the Moabites would not be conquering land promised to you by Hashem. The name*“Refa-im”* applied to the people disposed by the Moabites was a “borrowed” name, seeing that this people were of similarly gigantic stature as the originalRrefa-im, G’d had driven them out on account of Lot’s children. Nachmanides has problems with Rashi’s interpretation, asking why he should interpret our verse as referring to lands of the Moabites and Ammonites, lands which were never intended for the Israelites, lands which were not identical with the land of the Refa-im promised to the descendants of Avraham. Rashi himself has explained that two of the three mentioned in the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15,19 the קיני, קניזי, קדמוני are tribes whose lands are not again mentioned in promises to the other patriarchs, two of which lands were reserved for the descendants of Lot, although they had been promised to Avraham’s descendants, (verse 19) in recognition of Lots’ not revealing to Pharaoh that Sarai was Avraham’s wife, [so that in a manner of speaking, Avraham had ceded this land as reward to Lot., pending the coming of the Messiah. The third of these tribal lands was reserved for Esau’s descendants, i.e. Edom, also to be eventually part of Israel, after he coming of the Messiah. Nachmanides’ point is that from a geo-historical perspective, why would the Torah bother to tell us about these territorial changes and not about others unless they were linked to the fortunes of the Jewish people and deliberately engineered by G’d? Ed.] He concludes that the correct interpretation of our verse (s) is the exact reverse of what Rashi has written, and that the Torah had reason to write these lines in order that we should not wonder about G’d being so insistent that we not harass either the Moabites or the Ammonites, in view of the fact that their lands had already been promised to our patriarch Avraham? If G’d had not had reason to give these lands to the descendants of Lot in the meantime, the present decree and caution would indeed have been difficult to comprehend. Proof that this is so is the very fact that the original inhabitants of those lands were such powerful human beings that unless G’d had specifically wanted it, the Ammonites and Moabites would never have been able to dispossess them. Seeing that this is so, now was not yet the time for the Israelites to grab these lands.

יחשבו גם הם כענקים, ”they too were considered as equivalent to the giants.” This is the reason why mention is made of that fact in this context.

ובשעיר ישבו החורים, “and the Chorim used to live in the region of Se-ir.” The same considerations that are responsible for the Israelites not being allowed to make war or even harass the Moabites, (although their lands were on their route to the Holy Land, even) also are the ones why they must not at this time encroach on the land of Edom. That land had at one time been the land of the Chorites, who were identical with the tribe Chivi, mentioned in chapter 15 of Genesis above. Esau, Avraham’s grandson, had received it as a sort of dowry when he married the great-grand-daughter daughter of Tzivon, a prominent Canaanite belonging to that tribe. (Genesis 36,2) Tzivon, as mentioned there, was a son of the original Se-ir. It is possible that the reason why the Torah refers to that tribe as Chivi, was because in that neighbourhood there was a type of snake by that name that the people had to be on guard against. Various types of snakes including one by that name are referred to in Isaiah 11,8 where the lair חור of certain types of snakes such as פתן is mentioned. Compare especially Genesis 49,17 נחש עלי דרך. It is not unusual, historically, to find that names of certain places, landmarks and such, reflect a past association with some animal. Certain letters underwent repositioning when such places or animals were named. What was known as חוי may have been changed to חורי, so that the tribe known as חורי in the days of Avraham may have become the חווי in the days of his grandson Eau, or vice versa. During Avraham’s time these people lived in what later became known as Se-ir. It was most certainly something miraculous that the relatively few descendants of Esau should have dispossessed a far more numerous and well entrenched tribe. Moses may have referred to all these details to underline that possession of the descendants of Esau, Edom had been divinely assisted when settling in that region. It would not do to attack them, the time was not ripe for this in G’d’s timetable. G’d would retaliate against people who deprive others of their homeland unless instructed by Him to do so. He does likewise to nations who dispossess Israel of its ancestral heritage without having been bidden by Him to do so. This may be why Moses says כאשר עשה ישראל meaning as “Israel is going to do to Esau,” i.e. in the future, seeing that up until then Israel had not done any of this. [When G’d has promised, He will keep His promise, so that the promise by G’d that Israel would dispossess the Canaanites is described as fact rather than mere hope or even expectation. Ed.] Moses makes similar reference to the land of the Ammonites,

ארץ רפאים תחשב, “it is considered the land of the Refa-im;” for this was also land originally owned by the Refai-im.

והמעמונים יקראו להם זמזומים, “but the Ammonites called those people Samzumim.” This word is related to Psalms 140,9 זממו אל תפק, “do not let their plan succeed.” The doubling of the letter ז here reinforces the original meaning, i.e. that these people being so numerous and powerful cannot be denied anything they desire. The word תחשב here needs to be understood in conjunction with the name of Sichon’s capital חשבון, which already included the land of the original Refa-im. It may also be possible to explain the line רפאים תחשבו that the people in that land now are considered like the giants of ancient times, i.e. the אימים, a race which caused fear in all the neighbouring countries. The land occupied by the Refa-im was very large for after the Ammonites had captured some of that land, Og the King of the Emorite in Bashan was a giant dating back to these ancient times, something described in greater detail in Genesis chapter 14 where the defeat of the Refa-im at Ashtarot Karnayim has been documented. This is the reason why our verses describe the lands of Ammon and Moav as having originally been owned and inhabited by the Refai-im.

והעוים היושבים בחצרים עד עשזה, “as well as the Avites who dwelled as far south as Gaza.” Nachmanides explains that all these details are provided by Moses to show that although the Caphtorim are not part of the 7 Canaanite nations G’d promised the descendants of Avraham, seeing that they had settled in the coastal plain only after having expelled the Avites, a Canaanite tribe, when the Israelites later on occupied those lands this was quite legal. Further more, in Genesis 26,3 G’d confirmed the fact that the land of the Philistines was included in the Holy Land, as Yitzchok was in the land of the Philistines at the time when G’d promised him ”these lands.” Name changes by people who had supplanted others were historically quite frequent, and Bereshit Rabbah 26,7 mentions in particular that the Chivi, as we mentioned a name analogous to נחש, snake, was so- called as these people were experts in what roots were safe to eat and which not, something extremely important to snakes which had been condemned by G’d to eat עפר, things growing directly in the earth. Moreover, in certain parts of the galil the word עוי was used interchangeably with chivi. Moses concludes by informing us that at that time all these lands were occupied by the Chivi, part of which used to belong to the descendants of Esau. Bereshit Rabbah identifies the Avim with the Refa-im, speaking also about the gift promised by G’d to Avraham, seeing that no mention is made by Moses here of the Chivi, it is logical that the Refa-im replace that tribe in Moses’ recital here. This also seems to be born out when Moses in Deut. 7,1 speaks of seven nations G’d will fling out of the land and replace them with the Israelites, and six of the seven are identical with the names mentioned by G’d when He promised the land to the Israelites, the seventh, the Chivi, not having been included in the list in Genesis 15,19-21 where the Refa-im, apparently is meant to be identical with the Chivi. If not that, the “Chivi” might be either one of the three other tribes mentioned in that promise and none of the others, i.e. the Keyni, K’nizi, or Kadmoni. Our sages claim that Israel never inherited the lands of the three last mentioned tribes, and that this will be fulfilled only after the coming of the Messiah. If that is factual, there can be no question but that the “Chivi” is identical with the Refa-im in the promise to Avraham in chapter 15 of Genesis. The latter (Chivi) was the 6th of the sons of Canaan. (Genesis 10,17) His father had called him “Chivi.” However in the days of Avraham, over 200 years later, his descendants were known as Refa-im. Personally, I feel that Chivi was a nickname, based on his familiarity with the various plants and their roots, as I mentioned earlier. The word רפאים is also used in Scripture as describing things buried underground, as we know from Job 26,5 הרפאים יחוללו מתחת מים ושוכניהם, “are dead things formed beneath the water and the inhabitants thereof?” Or, Isaiah 26,19 וארץ רפאים תפיל, “you make the land cast out the dead.” The children of the Chivi increased drastically, and when the Canaanites eventually took possession of the land now known as the land of Canaan, the family of the Chivi grabbed a major share of that land. All these names describe in one way or another the sixth son of Canaan, Chivi. Since at the time of Avraham the tribe was known as Refa-im, G’d referred to that tribe by the name known to Avraham. Moses, here, refers to it by its original name. Some of these lands had been known as the land of the Chorim, etc. At any rate, at the time of Moses the lands formerly belonging to the Refa-im had already been parceled out to other tribes/nations and their names had been changed. Seeing that some of the lands promised to Avraham were not included in the lands that Israel was about to invade and conquer, Moses had to identify which lands were still forbidden to the Israelites to invade. Hence we have the references to the Eymim, the Bney Ammon, etc. On the other hand, lands that on the face of it had no connection to the Canaanites, such as the regions occupied by the Philistines, or the Caphtorim, were mentioned in order that we know that the people dwelling in them had themselves been interlopers. Let us now turn to Rashi’s explanation that the Avim were descendants of the Philistines, seeing that they are lumped together in the Book of Joshua, 13,3 and that the Israelites at this time were unable to dispossess them on account of the oath given by Avraham to Avimelech in Genesis 21,23 (which spanned 4 generations) Seeing that the Philistines there had been replaced by the Caphtorim, Avraham’s oath no longer applied. Nachmanides challenges this interpretation by Rashi, claiming that the Avim have not been included under the heading of the Philistines, as in the quotation from Joshua the five leaders of the Philistines are mentioned first, without any mention of the Avim; only subsequently are the Avim listed as a separate nation. [Presumably, Nachmanides’ argument is based on the fact that the verse begins mentioning that there were only 5 such leaders of the Philistines, so that anyone mentioned after those five have been named is not included. Ed.] Furthermore, assuming that the land of the Avim had become permitted to the Israelites because they were not the original inhabitants there but had been replaced already by a previous invading force by the Caphtorim, who permitted the lands of the Philistines? [We know they had been there at the time of Avraham and at the time of Moses. Ed.] What reason was there that the lands of the Philistines should ever become part of the land of Israel so that Avimelech had felt threatened and asked Avraham for a non-aggression pact covering the next four generations? After all, the Philistines did not belong to the seven Canaanite tribes whose land G’d had promised to Avraham? The Philistines are after all descended from Mitzrayim, the second son of Cham, not of Canaan his fourth son! In light of all the above the true historical facts are that the Philistines as well as the Caphtorim had invaded and captured some of the lands previously occupied by the Canaanites, else how come Avimelech was King in Gerar, a territory at one time belonging to the Canaanites? The Philistines as well as the Caphtorim expanded southwards in the coastal plain and conquered Gaza, Ashkelon, Gat and Ekron from the Cananites. This made it legal for the Israelites to occupy lands that had been illegally acquired by its residents. Those lands, according to G’d’s promise to Avraham, had been intended as their ancestral heritage. As it happened, the Israelites did not actually conquer that coastal plain until long after the time frame provided for in Avraham’s oath to Avimelech had expired. Three generations of Philistines had already died before Joshua began his conquest of the land of Canaan.

ראה נתתי בידך את סיחון, “See! I have delivered in your hand Sichon, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this address by Moses is a quote from Moses’ address to the people commencing in verse 31. Here we are merely told that prior to the campaign Moses did send out spies to ascertain the militarily best way of provoking the confrontation. Once G’d mentioned the fact that in this instance Israel was to provoke war, Moses did not send any more spies, etc. The reason was that in the event that Sichon would have proved to be in a conciliatory mood, Moses would have violated G’d’s command to provoke war with Sichon. On the other hand, if Moses knew that the messengers dispatched to ask for permission to traverse the land would be rejected out of hand, why did he bother? We cannot answer that Moses sent these messengers from his own initiative in order to comply with the rule that prior to a war of expansion the opposing side must be given a chance to surrender peacefully, as per Deut. That command certainly did not refer to the 7 Canaanite nations of whom he had been told not to allow a single soul to survive! Moreover, normally, the people of cities captured in a war of expansion, authorised by G’d- would become prisoners of war, slaves, etc, whereas if Sichon had agreed, none of his land would have been touched at all? We must therefore translate the line ואשלח מלאכים in verse 26 as being in the past tense. He introduced the whole story by explaining that G’d’s hand had been involved from the first moment, and that Sichon’s refusal had been engineered by G’d so as to set in motion the scenario that would lead to his destruction, and his people would know that their king himself had been to blame.

היום הזה אחל תת פחדך ויראתך על כל העמים, “From this day on I shall begin to place the fear and dread of you upon all the nations, etc.” Nachmanides understands these words as G’d making the nations of the earth afraid of the people of Israel so that when the Canaanites would come out to fight them they would do so with no confidence in themselves. If these words had been words of reassurance to Moses, what was the point, seeing that he would participate only in the two campaigns against Sichon and Og? Clearly G’d’s assurance is aimed at Joshua and the Jewish people as a whole.

כאשר עשו לי בני עשו, “as the descendants of Esau have done to me.” According to Rashi the subject is the food and drink that the Israelites were interested in buying while traversing the land of Sichon. The reference could not have been to the crux of the matter, the permission to traverse the land, as the descendants of Esau were known to have refused this, so how could Moses have misrepresented the facts? Ibn Ezra has a problem with such an interpretation, as we would be faced with the Israelites contradicting themselves when the Torah cites as a reason that the Moabites could never be accepted as converts the fact that they refused to offer food and water to the Israelites? (Deut. 23,5) He therefore understands the words כאשר עשו לי בני עשו, as referring to the fact that the Israelites had made a detour around the land of Edom not because the Edomites objected to their traversing the land in an orderly fashion, בדרך, בדרך, but because their king had objected. Moses asks to be given the same privileges as the בני עשו as opposed to the מלך אדום had been prepared to grant them. Only the king had been afraid that the Israelites instead of staying on a rural pass would march into a city. Many other commentators do not see a contradiction in what is written in Deut 23,5 with what is written here. There is a difference between volunteering to a thirsty nation some water and selling water to a nation that clearly has managed for 40 years without such “favours” from any other nation. G’d’s objection to the Moabites’ behaviour was based on their lack of humanity in denying much needed water to a nation that owed its entire existence to that nation’s founder Avraham having once rescued him from captivity and the second time from being included in the people who lost their lives in Sodom by praying on behalf of the “righteous“ inhabitants of Sodom. Some commentators feel that the line in Deut. 23,5 refers to the Ammonites, not to the Moabites. The Moabites had hired the services of Bileam to curse the Israelites, an act of extreme ingratitude that is quite enough to disqualify them from membership in the Jewish nation, and to enjoy the direct protection of the כנפי השכינה, the protectively outstretched wings of the Divine Presence. According to that view, at the time, the Moabites had offered bread and water.

ונחרם כל עיר מתם, “we destroyed every populated city.” Nachmanides writes that this was justified as the Emorites belonged to the seven tribes of the Canaanites concerning whom G’d had issued the decree: “do not allow a single soul to survive!” (Deut. 20,16) In light of this it is surprising that Moses offered the hand of peace to these people! I plan to explain this (compare Nachmanides on Deut. 20,17) as well as why no such offer was made to Og, King of Bashan, (but to the same tribe of people).The latter had come out swinging, without waiting for on offer of an olive branch.