Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

AND THE CANAANITE, THE KING OF ARAD, HEARD. We find [mentioned] amongst the conquests of Joshua: the king of Arad, one. of the river Jordan: so how — as indicated in this section — could its king fight against Israel whilst they were still on the eastern bank of the Jordan: Moreover, in the section dealing with the [stages of the Israelites’] journeyings [in the wilderness], it is written, And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan, and Scripture does not refer to [that land which is] on the eastern side of the Jordan as “the land of Canaan” without qualification, just as He said, the land of Canaan according to the borders thereof., 34:2. Verses 10-12 ibid., define the eastern boundary of Canaan as the Jordan: hence we see that the word “Canaan” does not include land east of the Jordan. So the question reappears: how come that the king of Arad, a land west of the Jordan, came to fight the children of Israel who were now encamped east of the Jordan? Furthermore, [if Arad was to the east of the river Jordan], Moses should have given the land of the king of Arad to one of the tribes of Israel [as their inheritance, in the same way that he divided up the other lands which he conquered]; but Scripture always tells, Verses 13-15; Joshua 12:6, etc. that it was the land of Sihon and Og, the two Amorite kings, which Moses gave to the two tribes [Reuben and Gad] and to the half-tribe [of Menasheh], whereas the nine tribes and the [other] half-tribe [of Menasheh] received their inheritance after they crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan. Perhaps we may explain [that the reason for this is] that Israel utterly destroyed their land, and did not settle therein at all. But that is not [the] correct [explanation of the word v’hacharamti in Verse 2]. Similarly Rashi explains [that the expression: And Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal, and said, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand,] then ‘v’hacharamti’ their cities means that Israel would dedicate the spoils [of those cities] to the Most High [and not that they would destroy the cities themselves]. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that this king of Arad dwelt in the south on the western side of the Jordan, in the land of Canaan near the Jordan, bordering onto the land of the children of Judah, near Hebron which is in the south;. and he heard from afar of the coming of the children of Israel, so he [the king] came by the way of Atharim to the plains of Moab to fight there against Israel. This is the meaning of the word ‘vayishma’ (and he heard) [i.e., he heard from a distance]. Therefore Scripture relates that he dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan, [to point out] that he came from another land, to the place where Israel was [encamped]. Then Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal that if He would deliver him [the king of Arad] into their hand, they would dedicate all that they had to G-d. And Scripture [further] relates that G-d heard their prayer, and the vow that they had vowed unto G-d, they fulfilled,. for they killed them now in the days of Moses, as He had commanded, None devoted, that may be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death, and they gave all their spoils into the treasury of the House of the Eternal. Scripture continued by relating here that Israel also laid their cities waste when they came into the land of Canaan, after the death of Joshua, in order to fulfill the vow which they had made, and they called the name of the cities Hormah [Utter Destruction]. [the last words in Deuteronomy] — reached the ear of Moses from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He”. Since there is no difference in time for G-d, it is written in the past tense, for past, present, and future are all the same to Him. See also Ramban Vol. II, p. 192, for the reason why the tenses are often used interchangeably in prophetic statements. It is with reference to this that it is stated in the Book of Judges, And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad, and it is [further] written, And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they smote the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And he called the name of the city Hormah., Verse 17. It was then that this vow [recorded here] was fulfilled, but Scripture, however, completed the account of the matter here, just as it did in the section speaking of the descending of the manna, [where it states]: and Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept. And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan, [an event which occurred] after the death of Moses, until the morrow after the Passover. Similarly, These are the names of the men that shall take possession of the Land for you etc. constitutes a prophecy that these men will [still] live and function [at that time]; for it is impossible [to say] that G-d would specify for them men about whom there was a doubt [as to whether they would still be living; for if so], He should rather have commanded Joshua [about them] at the time of the division of the Land. [But since the command was already given to Moses, we see that the Torah speaks of future events, and that this constitutes a Divine promise that these specified men would live until the time of the division of the Land.] It is also correct to say that already now in the days of Moses the Israelites destroyed this king [of Arad] and his people with the edge of the sword, and called the place of the battle Hormah, and after they crossed the Jordan, Joshua also killed the [then] king of Arad of the river Jordan: so how — as indicated in this section — could its king fight against Israel whilst they were still on the eastern bank of the Jordan: who ruled after [the one in the days of Moses], together with the [other] Canaanite kings who ruled at that time. When the children of Judah came into their cities, they destroyed them as well, and called the name of the cities Hormah,, Verse 17. because [by destroying them] they fulfilled the vow which their fathers had made, and I will utterly destroy their cities. Therefore He stated here, and he called the name of ‘the place’ Hormah, but there [in the Book of Judges] it is written, and he called the name of ‘the city’ Hormah,, Verse 17. meaning the name of every city which belonged to the king of Arad, as they fulfilled their vow, and their spoils were dedicated to the Sanctuary. Thus [according to this interpretation] everything mentioned here happened at the same time [in the days of Moses], except that He mentioned, and their cities, [the destruction of which] occurred at a later time, when they came into their cities. It is for this reason that it says [here], and I will utterly destroy their cities, and does not say “[I will destroy] them and their cities,” because the verse [only] mentions their vow concerning the future, but they themselves [the people] died in the battle [at the time of Moses] and were destroyed there. And the language of the verse fits in well with this explanation of ours, for it should have said: “and He delivered up the Canaanites ‘into their hand,’ and ‘they’ utterly destroyed them and their cities, and ‘they’ called the name of the place Hormah.” But Scripture omitted the pronouns]. Nor does it say vayacharimu (and “they” destroyed), but instead says: ‘vayachareim’ [literally: “and ‘he’ destroyed” — i.e., the one who destroyed them — now, or later on in the days of Joshua]. Similarly it does not say vayikr’u (“and ‘they’ called”), the name of the place Hormah [in the days of Moses] but ‘vayikra’ [“and ‘he’ called” — the one who called — now or later on]. in order to indicate that He delivered the Canaanites into the hand of whoever of the Israelites He delivered them, some of them now and some of them at a later time, for G-d hearkened to their prayer, and they fulfilled their vow.
THAT ISRAEL CAME BY WAY OF ‘ATHARIM.’ According to the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered the verse: “that Israel came by the way which ‘the spies’ had gone”], the meaning is that when the spies came and went up from the south and returned, the inhabitants of the Land noticed them, and this Canaanite who dwelt in the south heard about them, and so he followed the same route which they had taken, until he reached the camp of the Israelites. Onkelos has interpreted it well. And our Rabbis have said: “What was the report which he [the Canaanite] heard?” — because they found difficulty with the verse in the section [dealing with the stages] of the [Israelites’] journeyings, which states, And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan, heard of the coming of the children of Israel, since it does not mention there any war, or any other event whatsoever. Therefore they said that the report was about the death of Aaron which is mentioned there,, Verses 38-39. and Scripture thus states that Israel’s enemies heard of the death of the righteous one, and they were consequently encouraged by that event to fight against Israel. Likewise the Rabbis have said 18. that this Canaanite was Amalek, and [therefore the Israelites] did not conquer his land, nor take any part of it; but they completely destroyed their cities.
AND HE TOOK SOME OF THEM CAPTIVE. “It was only one maidservant [of the Israelites that was taken captive].” This is Rashi’s language, based upon the words of our Rabbis. on this verse. The Sages were induced to make this comment because they were of the opinion that Israel never suffered defeat at the hands of any enemy except at times when they sinned; such as at the first war with Amalek, because they had said, Is the Eternal among us, or not? and at the second [war with Amalek]. on account of their sin in the [matter of the] spies, when Moses had warned them not to wage war., Verses 41-42. But in all wars which were by [Divine] command, not one man of them was missing throughout the days of Moses. Therefore the Sages explained this verse as meaning that they [the enemy] took captive from Israel that captive whom they had in their possession, namely this maidservant whom the Israelites had [previously] captured from them. [The usage here of the term shevi (captive) in the sense of “servant” is] similar to the expression ‘b’chor hashvi’ (the firstborn of the captive) which means the firstborn of ‘the maidservant’, 11:5. [and so here too the word shevi denotes a maidservant], since Scripture here does not say: “and he captured men from him,” or “[he captured] women and children.” According to the plain meaning of Scripture, the sense of the verse is that these Canaanites did not kill any of the Israelites, but took a few of them captive, and when G-d [later on] delivered them into their hands, they brought them all back, and not a single one of them was missing. Scripture mentioned this in order to inform us that since the Israelites saw at first that the Canaanites were winning [the war], they made this vow to dedicate all spoil which they would take to G-d, and G-d hearkened to their voice. It is possible also that we explain that G-d was angry with these Canaanites because they came from a distant land to fight against Israel, and feared not G-d; therefore He wanted that they should be utterly destroyed, and caused them to prevail at first so that the Israelites would vow to destroy them [and dedicate the spoils] to G-d.

AND MOSES MADE ‘NECHASH NECHOSHETH’ (A SERPENT OF BRASS). “He was not told to make it of brass. But Moses said: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, called it a nachash (serpent); therefore I will make it of nechosheth (brass)’ — since the one word resembles the other [in sound].” This is Rashi’s language, based upon the words of our Rabbis. But I do not understand this, for the Holy One, blessed be He, did not mention to Moses [the word] nachash, but said to him, Make thee ‘saraf’ (a fiery serpent)! But the intention of the Sages is that Moses was guided by the substantive name thereof [which is nachash; and saraf is merely a particular description of a certain kind of serpent — a “fiery” serpent — hence he made the saraf which G-d mentioned to him from nechosheth (brass), corresponding with its substantive name]. It appears to me that the secret of this matter is that this is one of the ways of the Torah, every deed of which is a miracle within a miracle. Thus [the Torah] removes injury by means of the cause of the injury, and heals illness by means of the cause of the sickness, as the Rabbis have mentioned in connection with [the verse], and the Eternal showed him a tree, and as occurred with the salt that Elisha [cast] into the water. Now it is a well-known medical principle that all people bitten by poisonous creatures become dangerously ill when they see them, or [even] when they [only] see their likeness, so that if people who have been bitten by a mad dog or other mad animals look into water, they see there the image of the dog or the attacker, and [this] can [cause them to] die, as is written in medical books and mentioned in the Gemara of Tractate Yoma. Similarly doctors protect them from [people] mentioning in their presence the name of the animal that bit them, [and they forbid people] to mention it at all, because their minds cling to this thought and do not turn away from it altogether until it causes their death. [The doctors] have already mentioned that it is an empirical fact, amongst the wonders of reproduction, that if the urine of a person bitten by a mad dog is put in a glass receptacle after he has become rabidly sick, there will appear in that urine the likeness of the young of small dogs. And if you pass the liquid through a cloth and filter it, you will not find any trace of them at all; but if you return the liquid to the glass bottle, and it remains there for about an hour, you will again clearly see in it the small dogs. This is a true fact, and of the wonders of the powers of the soul. Now in view of all this, it would have been correct that the Israelites, who had been bitten by the fiery serpents, should not look upon a serpent, and should not mention it or bring it to mind at all. But the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses to make for them the likeness of a fiery serpent, which was [the creature] that killed them. And it is well-known that these fiery serpents have red eyes and wide heads, and their bodies at their necks are like brass. Therefore Moses could not fulfill His command to make a fiery serpent except by making a serpent of brass, which appears similar to a fiery serpent. For had he made it of any other material, it would have had the likeness of a serpent, but not that of a saraf (a fiery serpent). And the Rabbis who said [that Moses was to make a brass serpent] because “one word corresponds [in sound] to the other,” [meant to imply] that the mere mention of the name [saraf, which is a particular form of nachash, as explained above] was harmful [for the people who had been bitten, and yet G-d wanted to heal them through it]. The general intention [of this section, then] is that G-d commanded that they should be healed by the harmful agent whose nature is to kill; therefore they made its likeness in form and name, and when a person concentrated his gaze upon the brass serpent which resembled totally the offending agent, he lived. This was to make them realize that it is G-d [alone] Who sendeth death and maketh alive.

FOR ARNON IS THE BORDER OF MOAB, BETWEEN MOAB AND THE AMORITES. Arnon was a city which belonged to Moab, [located] near the end of the Amorite border and the beginning of the border of Moab, and it was situated on brooks that flowed through it..

The simple meaning of [the expression] in the book of the wars of the Eternal. is that there were wise men in those generations who used to write down the history of great wars, for such was [the custom] in all generations. These authors were called moshlim (they that speak in parables), because they wrote in them [their books] by means of proverbs and figures of speech, and when there were victories which they considered wonderful, they ascribed those wars to G-d, to Whom they are in truth [to be attributed]. Now the victory of Sihon over Moab was marvellous in their eyes, therefore they wrote it down in a book, speaking of it in figurative language, Eth Vahev b’suphah etc., and writing about it in a proverb — Come ye to Heshbon etc. Now the name of one city of those that belonged to Moab was Vahev. And the pouring forth of the brooks — [this refers to] the slope of the brook, because the streams [of water] flow down continuously from the slopes of Pisgah. Similarly, in the hill-country, and in the lowland, and in the Arabah, and in ‘the slopes.’ B’suphah, [this word is] of [the root] ‘b’suphah’ (in the whirlwind) and in the storm. Thus when Sihon captured the cities of Moab, those who wrote in parables recorded in the book which they called “the Wars of the Eternal”: Eth Vahev b’suphah [meaning: “The city of Vahev He destroyed in a whirlwind”], or they wrote: “G-d warred against Vahev in a whirlwind.” And the slope of the brooks which belonged to Arnon, and the downpour of the brooks that inclineth toward the seat of Ar, and the slope that leaneth upon the border of Moab — all these the Eternal destroyed in the whirlwind and in the storm, for Sihon came upon them [the Moabites] suddenly, his horses’ hoofs were counted like flint, and his wheels like a whirlwind. Similarly those [who spoke in parables] said: For a fire is gone out from Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon etc. Thus Scripture is bringing a proof from the book of “the Wars [of the Eternal”] that Arnon is on the border of Moab, and was forbidden to Israel [to capture], whereas the brooks and all the slopes as far as Arnon they were allowed [to take], for Sihon had captured from the king of Moab all his land until Arnon, but not Arnon itself. Thus Arnon remained part of Moab, and constituted its border, as it is written, And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I gave from Gilead even unto the valley of Arnon, the middle of the valley for a border., 3:16. And so also did Jephthah say, and they [the Israelites] pitched on the other side of the Arnon, but they came not within the border of Moab, for Arnon was the border of Moab.

And from thence to B’eir, The meaning of this is connected with the previous [Verse 13], saying that they pitched on the other side of the Arnon, and from there they set forth on their journey and went round about B’eir since they did not enter the Arnon or any [area] beyond it, because it continued [to be] the border of Moab. Scripture called here the name of the place [“B’eir”, which means “a well”] on account of the miracle [which happened there], but in the [section enumerating the stages of their] journeys [in the wilderness] it is not called by that name.

UMIMIDBAR MATANAH.’ The meaning of this is as Onkelos rendered it [“and from the wilderness it was given to them”], this being an elliptical expression that is common in songs. Thus it is saying that “from the wilderness, which is a land of drought and thirst, was this gift [the well] given to us; and from this gift [of the well which descended] unto the brooks, and from these brooks [ascended] to the heights until Pisgah, which looks down upon the land which is a complete howling wilderness — there was no other brook, nor any other spring of water except for this one.” This was the Well of Miriam in the opinion of our Rabbis, or a well which came out by word of Moses at the command of the Almighty, which Israel had not asked for. For when G-d told Moses, Gather the people together, and I will give them water, streams overflowed from it [the well], and continued unto distant places.

AND ISRAEL SENT MESSENGERS UNTO SIHON, KING OF THE AMORITES, SAYING: 22. ‘LET ME PASS THROUGH THY LAND.’ “Although they had not been commanded to send them [a message of] peace, they nonetheless took the initiative in [offering them] peace.” This is Rashi’s language. I will yet explain, with the help of G-d, in its [proper] place, that [unlike Rashi’s explanation] they were commanded to offer peace [terms before beginning to fight] all the nations, except for Ammon and Moab. But in truth [we must say] that when Moses said to Sihon, Let me pass through your land, he did this of his own accord by way of conciliation, for the land of Sihon and Og was [part of the] inheritance of Israel, since it had originally belonged to the Amorite, [and was included in the territory promised to Israel]. Thus had Sihon and Og responded peaceably, and opened [their cities] to them, they would have been entitled [to take] all the people that are found therein tributary unto them, and they would serve them. But Moses [who only requested of Sihon, Let me pass through your land, and thus leave him untouched altogether] knew that Israel would not conquer now all ten nations, and he wanted all their conquests to be on the other side of the Jordan, and forward [i.e., in Canaan proper, on the western side of the Jordan] so that they should all dwell [concentrated] together, and [also because] it was the good Land which is flowing with milk and honey. Thus you see, had not the children of Gad and the children of Reuben requested it [the land captured east of the Jordan] from him [Moses] he would not have left anyone [to live] there, but [would have allowed it] to be a wasteland! And similarly the Rabbis have taught in the Sifre: 229. “To give thee [their land], 26:3, and is the source of the law that the first-fruits are not brought from the land east of the Jordan. — this excludes [the land] beyond the Jordan [eastward], which you took for yourself.” Our Rabbis have furthermore said in connection with the ten [degrees of] holiness, that the [land on the east] side of the Jordan is not suitable for [building therein] the Sanctuary and for the dwelling therein of the Divine Glory. And so it seems [also] from Scripture, for it says, If, however, the land of your possession [on the eastern side of the Jordan] be unclean etc.. From this it is clear that the land on the east side of the Jordan is not suitable for the building of the Sanctuary etc. Now they did not send to Og a message [offering] peace, because when he saw that the Israelites had defeated Sihon, he [immediately] went forth into battle against them [the Israelites].

FOR HESHBON WAS THE CITY OF SIHON THE KING OF THE AMORITES. That is to say, now when Israel waged battle against it, it was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, meaning to say the city of the royal residence, for he had fought against ‘melech harishon’ (the first king) of Moab, [meaning the one] who had ruled over them before any king reigned, or harishon [may mean] “the one before Balak,” who was the king of Moab at that time, and Sihon had taken all his land out of his hand, even unto the Arnon. Now Heshbon marked the border at which this conquest [of Sihon] began; therefore it was considered the Amorites’, and Israel was only prohibited [from capturing] that land of Moab and Ammon which was land that was in their possession at the time of the Divine command [not to capture any of the lands of Moab and Ammon]. And Scripture brings a proof that Heshbon was the city of Sihon, for those that speak in parables [as explained above in Verse 13] say, come ye to Heshbon etc., for when Sihon fought against the king of Moab, he captured at first the city of Heshbon, and the city was destroyed, and afterwards he rebuilt it as his royal abode. This is the meaning of [the phrase], who dwelleth in Heshbon. And similarly it is said in the Book of Joshua, Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon. Thus those who spoke in parables would say to the Amorites: “Come to Heshbon, and settle therein; let the city of Sihon, over which he has become king, be built and established after its destruction.” And after Sihon had established himself in Heshbon, he assembled his army therein and captured from the border of Moab until Arnon, including Arnon itself. Arnon itself” is not found. Other scholars have also commented that the reading should be: “excluding Arnon itself.” This is undoubtedly correct, as Ramban himself expressly states above in Verse 13. Therefore they that speak in parables said, that a fire is gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon wherein he dwells; and it has devoured Ar of Moab, and the lords of the high places which belong to Arnon. For Sihon has captured from Moab unto Arnon, and all the high places of the land and the lords of the high places, this being similar [in meaning to]: even the ancient high places are ours in possession. He [Sihon] also took from the children of Ammon [the territory] from the Arnon to the Jabbok, as it is said in [the Book of] Joshua, And Moses gave unto the tribe of Gad etc. Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon unto Aroer, this being the land which the king of Ammon claimed from Jephthah, as he said, Because Israel took away my land, when he came up out of Egypt, from the Arnon even unto the Jabbok, and unto the Jordan.

WOE TO THEE, MOAB! THOU ART PERISHED, O PEOPLE OF CHEMOSH. The meaning of this is that [the people of] Moab used to worship Chemosh their deity, and build high places [i.e., altars, to him] and trust in him more than every other people, and in the time of their trouble they would say to him: ‘Arise, and save us.’ Similarly Scripture refers to [this worship of theirs] in all places, as it is written, And it shall come to pass, when it is seen that Moab hath wearied himself upon the high place, that he shall come to his sanctuary to pray; but he shall not prevail; and it is further stated [of Moab], and Chemosh shall go forth into captivity, his priests and his princes together with him; Moreover I will cause to cease in Moab, saith the Eternal, him that offereth in the high place, and him that offereth to his gods., Verse 35. Therefore those who spoke in parables said by way of mockery, that Chemosh hath given ‘his sons’ as fugitives, refugees who flee [to safety] because of the sword; and ‘his daughters’ into captivity; [these terms, “sons” and “daughters” are used] because those who believe in him are called “his sons” and “his daughters,” in the same way that they are [here] called “his people” [people of Chemosh]. Similarly [we find the expression], the daughter of a strange god. The [correct explanation is thus] not like the words of Rashi, who interpreted [the verse as follows]: “He the Giver [i.e., G-d] gave his sons [i.e., those of Moab] as fugitives from the sword.” Chemosh was also worshipped by the children of Ammon, as Jephthah said [to the king of Ammon], that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess that you will possess. They also had in their country Milcom the detestation of the Ammonites. Or [it may be that] Jephthah mentioned Chemosh to the king of Ammon because of [the land] which Israel had captured from Moab, just as he [Jephthah] mentioned to them [i.e., to the Ammonites]: Balak king of Moab, meaning to say that neither Chemosh their god nor Balak their king had saved their land [Moab] from the hand of Israel. It is very fitting that we say, as our Rabbis explained, that [the reference in the term] ‘hamoshlim’ (they that speak in parables) is to Balaam and those like him, the diviners who spoke in parables about future events.

FEAR HIM [Og] NOT. “For Moses was afraid [to wage war against Og] in case the merit of Abraham [whom Og had helped] would stand him in stead, for it is said about him, And there came ‘hapalit’ (one that had escaped) and told Abram the Hebrew, this being Og who had escaped from the Rephaim whom Amraphel and his allies had defeated at Ashteroth-karnaim.” This is Rashi’s language, based on the words of our Rabbis. 25; Bamidbar Rabbah 19:19. Here too the Rabbis were induced to make this comment because they knew that Moses our teacher would not have been afraid of an arm of flesh, for with him was the Eternal our G-d, and all the nations are as nothing before Him; they are accounted by Him as things of nought, and vanity. [Furthermore], it was he [Moses himself] who admonished Israel: fear not, nor be dismayed on account of them, and who criticized them for being afraid of them, as it is said in connection with the [affair of the] spies, Then I said unto you: ‘Dread not, neither be afraid of them. The Eternal your G-d, Who goeth before you, He shall fight for you.’, 1:29-30. Therefore [we must say] that Moses was afraid [of Og] because he knew of his merit [in having helped Abraham]. In accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture, Moses had not intended now to give Israel the land of Sihon and Og as an inheritance, as I have explained. But Sihon had gone out against Israel into the wilderness,, Verse 23. and had fought them against their will [in spite of their desire for peace]. Then G-d informed [Moses], Behold, I have begun to deliver up Sihon and his land before thee; begin to possess his land, for here began the conquest of the seven nations [who inhabited the Land of Israel]. But Og [nonetheless] mobilized all his forces at Edrei, which was a city at the end of his border, and Israel could have turned away from him just as they had turned away from Esau [i.e., Edom]. Therefore G-d told Moses, “Fear him not; go to him and contend with him in battle, for I have delivered him into thy hand.” And in Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah I have seen [the following text] “Why was Moses afraid [of Og]? He said: Perhaps Israel committed a trespass in the war against Sihon, [by taking of the spoil for themselves], or maybe they have become defiled by sins.” This is a completely homiletic exposition. And indeed all righteous people have this fear [that they might have sinned in error], and this [fear] likewise occurred [in the case] of Joshua [about whom it says that G-d told him, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed]. Balak