And it went out. Wherever Scripture says “and it went out,” the measuring line departed from a straight course and turned aside, either inward or outward. Wherever it says “and it turned,” the boundary turned along two directions, forming the shape of the letter dalet. Wherever it says “and it curved around,” the boundary surrounded a particular place on three sides and then returned to its original straight course. Here it says, “and it went out southward to the Ascent of Akrabbim,” whereas in the portion of Masei (Numbers 34:4) it says, “Your border shall turn southward toward the Ascent of Akrabbim.” This is because the Ascent of Akrabbim was not directly opposite the tongue of the sea but extended southward, so the measuring line proceeded diagonally from east to west toward the south. From this perspective, Scripture here says, “and it went out.” Yet because that location formed the corner or angle, with the boundary encompassing it along two directions, the expression “and it turned” is also appropriate.

And it ascended southward to Kadesh-barnea. In the portion of Masei (Numbers 34:4), however, it says, “and its extremity shall be south of Kadesh-barnea.” The rule is that wherever Scripture says, “and its extremity shall be,” either the boundary itself terminates there or its deviation ends there: until that point the measuring line had deviated from its straight course, and there it returned to its original line. After Scripture says, “and it went out southward to the Ascent of Akrabbim,” the line was deviating, as implied by the expression “went out.” While following this deviation, it passed through Zin as far as Kadesh-barnea, where the deviation ended; therefore, it says, “and its extremity shall be.” The Torah consequently says there, “and it shall go out to Hazar-addar,” because from Kadesh the line turned inward, and at Hazar-addar it reached the straight boundary line again. Here Scripture abbreviates, relying upon what is stated in the Torah.

And it went out to the Brook of Egypt. In the portion of Masei (Numbers 34:5), however, Scripture says, “and the border shall turn.” This accords with what was explained above. Since the boundary departed inward from its course and followed the brook as far as the sea, which lay farther inward, Scripture here says “and it went out,” viewed from the point at which it met the brook. There it says “and it turned,” viewed from the boundary’s curving course and its formation of a corner.

Beth-hoglah. The city itself lay outside the boundary line and belonged to Benjamin (below, 18:21), whereas the slope of Beth-hoglah belonged to Judah (below, 18:19). Therefore, Scripture says there, “and it passed toward the slope of Beth-hoglah.”

North of Beth-arabah. Beth-arabah belonged to Judah and is the Beth-arabah enumerated below in verse 61. There was also another Beth-arabah belonging to Benjamin (below, 18:22). The one mentioned here corresponds to the places described there (18:18): “It passed toward the slope opposite the Arabah northward and descended to the Arabah.” Both are included here under the name Beth-arabah.

And the boundary ascended to Debir. That is, from the Stone of Bohan it descended into the Valley of Achor, and from there it ascended to Debir. Debir belonged to Judah (below, verse 49); therefore, this landmark is not mentioned in the description of Benjamin’s border (18:19).

And the boundary turned northward toward Gilgal. This means that here the boundary line departed from its course and turned northward. The reference to Gilgal means “the district,” for Gilgal itself was situated before the Valley of Achor, between the Jordan and Jericho, as explained above (5:10; 7:26). In describing Benjamin’s border, Scripture says (below, 18:17), “and it went out toward the districts opposite the Ascent of Adummim,” without adding, “which is south of the brook.” Accordingly, “opposite the Ascent of Adummim” means that there were several districts extending from this boundary, and they belonged to Benjamin; but one of them—the district south of the brook—belonged to Judah. Scripture refers to that one here by saying, “toward Gilgal, which is opposite the Ascent of Adummim”—namely, the one south of the brook, which belonged to Judah. There, however, it refers to the other districts belonging to Benjamin, toward which Benjamin’s boundary line went out. This northward deviation of the boundary line continued as far as En-rogel, as Scripture says, “and its extremities were at En-rogel.” At that point the line began returning to its straight course, so En-rogel marked the end of the deviation. By the time it reached the Valley of Ben-hinnom, the line was again straight, opposite Debir and the Stone of Bohan. With this, you will understand the description of Benjamin’s border (ibid., 16–17): “It descended to En-rogel, curved around northward, went out to En-shemesh, went out toward the districts opposite the Ascent of Adummim, and descended to the Stone of Bohan.” The line proceeding from En-rogel to En-shemesh went outward; upon reaching En-shemesh, it curved around that place on three sides, which is the meaning of “curved around.” From there it went out toward the districts of the Ascent of Adummim, again deviating inward—an action also described by the term “went out”—and then descended to the Stone of Bohan, where it returned to the former straight line opposite the Valley of Ben-hinnom.

And the boundary ascended. This ascent continued as far as the spring of the waters of Nephtoah, from which point it began to descend. As the Sages said, “He considered building it at Ein Eitam, which is situated higher” (Zevachim 54b).

It is Jerusalem. It was called the slope of the Jebusite because the Jebusites dwelt there. By saying “on the south,” Scripture indicates that Jerusalem belonged to Benjamin and was included within his inheritance (18:28).

And the boundary ascended to the top of the mountain. This means the beginning of the mountain at the edge of its slope. In the description of Benjamin’s inheritance (18:16), Scripture calls this “the edge of the mountain.”

West of the Valley of Hinnom. That is, the mountain lay west of the Valley of Ben-hinnom and north of the Valley of Rephaim.

And the boundary curved around. I have already established that wherever Scripture says “and it curved around,” the boundary forms a curve encompassing three sides. Here the boundary line curved around and transferred a rounded strip from Benjamin’s portion into Judah’s portion, as the Sages said: “A strip extended from Judah’s portion into Benjamin’s portion, and the altar was built upon it” (Yoma 12a). This curve was completed at the spring of the waters of Nephtoah. Therefore, in the description of Benjamin’s border (18:16), the expression “and it curved around” is not used, because there the boundary line followed the convex side of the curve rather than its concave side.

And the boundary curved around to Baalah. Kiriath-jearim belonged to Judah (verse 60) and bordered the entire width of Benjamin’s territory (18:14–15). Scripture specifies, “it is Kiriath-jearim,” because there was another Baalah in the Negev (verse 29), namely Balah, which was assigned to Simeon (19:3). Therefore, Kiriath-jearim is called “Baale-judah” in I Samuel 6:2. Accordingly, the boundary line went northward toward the cities of Mount Ephron, where it curved around Kiriath-jearim on three sides, bringing it within Judah’s territory. The entire city, however, projected outward beyond the boundary line toward Benjamin’s inheritance. South of Kiriath-jearim there was either a sea or a place bearing that name. After the boundary line went out and encircled Kiriath-jearim, it followed its curve around the city’s western and northern sides, returned along its eastern side, turned southward, and reached the sea. Thus, Scripture says:

And it turned from Baalah toward the sea. For there the boundary turned in the shape of the letter dalet. This explains how, in the description of Benjamin’s inheritance (18:15), Scripture can say that the boundary went out from Baalah toward the sea, although there it proceeded from west to east: How could it have reached this sea? Rather, this sea lay southeast of Baalah. From the sea, the boundary turned toward Mount Seir, for the Judean mountain range meets Mount Seir on its southern side, and one part of it was called Mount Seir. It then passed westward and reached the northern side of Chesalon. This is not Chesil, mentioned in verse 30, which lay in the Negev and was assigned to Simeon.

And it descended to Beth-shemesh. This was the Beth-shemesh belonging to Judah, for there was another Beth-shemesh in Issachar’s inheritance (below, 19:22) and another in Naphtali’s inheritance (ibid., 34). Likewise, we find that the Ark of Hashem was returned from Ekron to Beth-shemesh and from there to Kiriath-jearim (I Samuel 5:10; 6:12).

And it passed on to Timnah. Which belonged to Judah (verse 57).

And it went out. The boundary deviated northward a second time, toward the slope of Ekron, one of the Philistine cities, which belonged to Judah (verse 45).

And it curved around—toward Shikkeron. Shikkeron lay outside the boundary, which curved around it on three sides and then returned to the point opposite the slope of Ekron. From there the line passed straight toward Mount Baalah, and from there it went out and deviated from its straight course toward Jabneel. This is not the Jabneel belonging to Naphtali (19:33).

According to the word of Hashem. Everywhere else Scripture says “by the word of Hashem”; only here, below (17:4) concerning the portion of Zelophehad’s daughters, and below (21:3) concerning the Levitical cities does it say “according to the word of Hashem.” This is because in all these cases the command had already been given through Moses and was not a new command, whereas a newly issued command is always described as being “by the word of Hashem.”

And he dispossessed them. This occurred during Joshua’s lifetime. I explained in my commentary on Judges 1:11 why the book of Judges appears to place it after his death. Likewise, the account given here from verse 15 through verse 20 is repeated there, and I explained it in that context. (32) All the cities were twenty-nine. Yet when counted individually, they appear to total thirty-eight. The commentators write that the nine additional cities were taken by the children of Simeon from Judah’s portion and are listed in Simeon’s inheritance: Beer-sheba, Moladah, Hazar-shual, Ezem, Eltolad, Hormah, Ziklag, Ain, and Rimmon. I am not satisfied with this explanation. First, one obtains a total of thirty-eight only by interpreting “Hazor-hadattah and Kerioth-hezron, which is Hazor” as four separate cities. In truth, however, the words (verse 25) “Hezron, which is Hazor” indicate that it is one city, just as “Kiriath-sannah, which is Debir” (verse 49) and “Kiriath-baal, which is Kiriath-jearim” (verse 60) each refer to one city. Moreover, I do not understand why Scripture would say “Hezron, which is Hazor,” since Hazor was already enumerated in verse 23. Furthermore, Balah, listed in Simeon’s inheritance (19:3), is Baalah; Bethul (ibid., 4) is Chesil; and “Beth-lebaoth and Sharuhen” (ibid., 6) are the same as Lebaoth and Shilhim mentioned here, for the pronunciation of names of cities and persons frequently varies, as is well known to anyone who examines the variants found in the Book of Chronicles. From what I understand of the words of the Sages, Kenah, Dimonah, and Adadah were one city: the principal city was called Kenah, while its surrounding areas were called Dimonah and Adadah. Similarly, Ziklag, Madmannah, and Sansannah were also one city: the principal city was called Ziklag, while its surrounding areas were called Madmannah and Sansannah. Likewise, the phrase “Hazor-hadattah and Kerioth-hezron, which is Hazor” does not add to the count, but explains Hazor: all these—Hazor-hadattah, meaning “the new enclosure,” and the settlements of Hazor—were included within Hazor. Scripture gives this identifying description because there was another Hazor in Naphtali (below, 19:36), namely the Hazor mentioned above in chapter 11. Lebaoth and Shilhim, which the commentators count as two cities, were likewise one, as I proved in discussing Simeon’s inheritance, where Beth-lebaoth and Sharuhen are mentioned as one; see there. Accordingly, there were precisely twenty-nine cities, no more. This enables you to understand the remarkable discussion in the Talmud (Gittin 7b): “Rav Huna bar Natan said to Rav Ashi: What is the meaning of the verse, ‘Kenah, Dimonah, and Adadah’? He replied: Scripture is enumerating the towns of the Land of Israel. He said to him: Do I not know that it is enumerating the towns of the Land of Israel? Rather, Rav Geviha of Argiza explained its meaning: Anyone who bears resentment against another but remains silent—the One Who dwells eternally executes judgment for him. Rav Ashi asked: If so, should ‘Ziklag, Madmannah, and Sansannah’ be interpreted similarly? He replied: Had Rav Geviha of Argiza been here, he would have offered an explanation. Rav Aha of Bei Haleza explained it thus: Anyone who has a complaint concerning food against another but remains silent—the One Who dwells in the burning bush executes judgment for him.” If you plow with my heifer, you will discover their riddle. The Sages knew that Kenah, Dimonah, and Adadah constituted one city together with its districts, and they therefore sought to explain why Scripture enumerated here the districts and outlying areas of Kenah, although they were not included in the number of cities—something it does nowhere else. Thus, when Rav Ashi answered Rav Huna bar Natan, “Scripture is enumerating the towns of the Land of Israel,” Rav Huna replied, “Do I not know that it is enumerating the towns of the Land of Israel?” His meaning was: Nevertheless, there must be a reason why Scripture counts here the small towns that are not included in the total. Rav Geviha supplied the reason: In that generation, the name of the city Kenah together with those of its districts was commonly used as a mnemonic and allusion to a moral teaching. Scripture therefore mentioned Kenah in the form in which people habitually referred to it together with its districts, thereby recalling the moral lesson associated with it. Rav Ashi then asked that Scripture similarly enumerates Ziklag together with Madmannah and Sansannah—one city and its districts—and therefore a reason was also needed for mentioning those districts. Rav Aha then came and supplied the moral teaching that they likewise associated with the names of Ziklag and its districts.

And the Jebusites. I have discussed and properly resolved the apparent contradiction between this passage and the Book of Judges, chapter 1, in my commentary there (verse 8).