Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

AND THE CHILDREN OF GAD AND THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN CAME AND SPOKE UNTO MOSES. In the preceding verse Scripture mentioned the children of Reuben first, [saying], Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle, as is the correct way [of referring to them], for he [Reuben] was the firstborn and he was the son of the principal wife [of Jacob, i.e., Leah, whereas Gad was the son of Leah’s handmaid, Zilpah]. Similarly also when Scripture tells of [the occurrence of] this event it says, And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I gave etc. However, in the whole of this section He mentions the children of Gad first, because it was they who suggested this idea, and it was they who first spoke to Moses about this inheritance; and they were also stronger than the children of Reuben, as it is said [of the Gadites], and he teareth the arm, yea, the crown of the head,, 33:20. and therefore they were not afraid of living alone amongst the inhabitants of that land. Now Moses suspected that they were only suggesting this [plan of settling on the east side of the Jordan] because they were afraid of the people in the land of Canaan, concerning whom the spies had said, We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we — therefore he told them that they did not trust in G-d, just like their fathers [who did not trust in Him] and therefore He would again punish them like their fathers, by leaving them in the wilderness. Therefore they answered him: “Far be it from us to fear them! For we shall pass over [the Jordan] armed for battle, and we shall be the most eager and the first amongst the people to fight against the enemies of the Eternal, for they are bread for us.”

FOR OUR INHERITANCE HAS COME TO US — “we have already received it on the eastern side [of the Jordan].” This is Rashi’s language. But it would not be correct for them to speak in this manner in front of Moses, saying, “we have already received it,” for it was not up to them, but on his will that the matter depended, and they did not receive it until he [decided to] give it to them. Instead, [the explanation of their words is that] they said to Moses: “For you do not have to give us an inheritance with them, thereby making their inheritance in their good Land smaller, for an inheritance which is suitable for us has come to us, since it is a land [fit] for cattle, and we have more cattle than the other tribes.” This they said in the nature of a request, not by way of contention. Or perhaps they said: “For we will not inherit with them, because even if you do not want to give us the land [on the east side of the Jordan] now, we will cross over together with them [the rest of the children of Israel], we and all that we have, but we will not inherit with them, for we will return to this land which is the inheritance that is suitable for us, and which we want, and which none of the other tribes want at all.”

[AND MOSES SAID UNTO THEM]: ‘IF THE CHILDREN OF GAD AND THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN WILL PASS WITH YOU etc. THEN YE [Joshua and the princes] SHALL GIVE THEM THE LAND OF GILEAD FOR A POSSESSION.’ The reason for this [command that then ye shall give them …] is that Moses did not give them now all the land of Sihon and Og, but only a few cities in the land of Gilead which was a place fit for cattle, namely Ataroth, and Dibon, etc. and those mentioned here, in which they built fortifications to settle their children and cattle therein, but the rest of the land they left waste. Therefore [Moses] commanded Joshua and the princes: “If they will pass over [the Jordan] with you, you shall give them all the land as a perpetual inheritance. But if they will not want to pass over with you, you should take away from them all this land and drive out from it their wives and children, and give them an inheritance fitting for them in the land of Canaan, which they shall conquer for themselves when they cross over [the Jordan].” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “But if they will not pass over of their own free will, you shall take them with you against their will, and they shall take their possession there [in the land of Canaan] together with you.”

AND THE CHILDREN OF GAD AND THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN ANSWERED, SAYING: [AS THE ETERNAL HATH SAID UNTO THY SERVANTS, SO WILL WE DO]. 32. WE WILL PASS OVER ARMED. They said to Moses: “Our lord need not command us with a double condition (Verses 29-30). [to cross over the Jordan]. Far be it from your servants to transgress that which my lord commands! For they [i.e., your words] are the words of G-d, and we will not transgress His commandment!” And this is the meaning of the expression, as the Eternal hath said, for at the beginning [i.e., before Moses had made the double condition] they had [already] said that they would do as my lord commanded [hence we must say that here in Verse 31 they were telling Moses there was no need for the double condition, for the reason explained above].

V’LACHATZI (AND UNTO A PART OF THE) TRIBE OF MENASHEH THE SON OF JOSEPH. At the beginning the tribe of Menasheh did not come to Moses [to ask for their inheritance to be on the east side of the Jordan], but when Moses apportioned the land to the two tribes [of Gad and Reuben], he saw that the land was larger than they required, and therefore he asked for people who were prepared to take their inheritance with them. And there were people of the tribe of Menasheh who wanted that land — perhaps they were [also] owners of cattle — and therefore he gave them their portion [in that land]. Now the meaning of v’lachatzi [literally “and unto the half”] is “unto one part” of them [as will be explained]. Similarly, Then were the people of Israel divided “lacheitzi’ (into two parts): ‘chatzi’ (part of) the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king, ‘v’hachatzi’ (and the other part)followed Omri. And the explanation [here is as follows]: The children of Menasheh consisted of eight paternal families as is written in the section dealing with the census, and [only] the families of the Machirites and of the Gileadites took their inheritance in this land [on the east of the Jordan], because they were men of valor and they conquered it for themselves, and Moses gave them a large part of it. The [other] six families, however, crossed over the Jordan [to take their inheritance in Canaan proper], as it is written in [the Book of] Joshua, And the lot was for the rest of the children of Menasheh according to their families; for the children of Abiezer, and for the children of Helek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida. And this is the meaning of what is written there, And there fell ten parts to Menasheh, beside the land of Gilead and Bashan, which is beyond the Jordan,, Verse 5. the interpretation thereof being as follows: They divided the [whole] Land into nine equal parts for the nine tribes, but they could not give to the remaining [part of the] tribe of Menasheh a whole portion [because two of their families had settled on the east side of the Jordan], nor could they give them [only] half a portion, because most of them had remained [in the land of Canaan]. Therefore they divided the whole tribe into parts and they found that only a tenth of the total population of Menasheh, and the remainder consisted of ten-elevenths. The one-eleventh part of the whole is expressed as “one tenth,” because after separating it from the whole, it is one-tenth of the remainder. Thus out of the total inheritance given to the whole tribe of Menasheh, ten-elevenths were allotted to the families that settled in the Land of Israel proper — they are the ten parts referred to in Joshua 17:5 — while the remaining eleventh part was assigned to the families of Menasheh on the east side of the Jordan. of [the total population of] the tribe took their inheritance in the land of Bashan [on the east side of the Jordan] and ten parts remained [and settled in the Land of Israel]. These were then given ten parts, Verse 5. [of the amount] given to a whole tribe, of the total population of Menasheh, and the remainder consisted of ten-elevenths. The one-eleventh part of the whole is expressed as “one tenth,” because after separating it from the whole, it is one-tenth of the remainder. Thus out of the total inheritance given to the whole tribe of Menasheh, ten-elevenths were allotted to the families that settled in the Land of Israel proper — they are the ten parts referred to in Joshua 17:5 — while the remaining eleventh part was assigned to the families of Menasheh on the east side of the Jordan. while one part remained [on the east side of the Jordan for the families of the Machirites and the Gileadites]. Perhaps it was because these two families — the Machirites and the Gileadites — were the smallest of their tribe [and would therefore have received only a small portion of the land allotted to their tribe] that they wanted to separate themselves from their tribe, in order that they should have a greater inheritance [proportionally] than the rest of them, for they could conquer it by their sword, as it is said, because he [Machir] was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan. This is why Scripture mentioned ‘parts’ with reference to this tribe [of Menasheh, saying, And there fell ten ‘parts’ to Menasheh,, Verse 5. a term] which it does not use in connection with any of the other tribes. This appears to me to be the explanation of this verse [And there fell ten parts …] according to the simple meaning of Scripture. Now Moses did not mention in the Torah that he [Joshua] was to apportion this land amongst them [the tribes of Gad and Reuben], giving each one of these two tribes his own portion, but instead Scripture says [in Verse 33] that he [Moses] promised them and the part of the tribe of Menasheh the kingdoms of these two kings [Sihon and Og]; and in the Book of Deuteronomy he explained that he gave the part of the tribe of Menasheh a portion for itself, all the region of Argob, and all the Bashan. Thus the Torah dealt briefly [with this matter], because He did not want to mention therein the [details of the] allocation of the land between these two [tribes], just as the allocation amongst the other tribes is also not mentioned. But in the Book of Joshua it is clearly stated that Moses gave them their [specific] portions, as it is written, And Moses gave unto the tribe of the children of Reuben according to their families. And their border was etc., and it is further written, And Moses gave unto the tribe of Gad [...] according to their families. And their border was etc.,, Verses 24-25. and again it says, And Moses gave inheritance unto part of the tribe of Menasheh; and it was for the part-tribe of the children of Menasheh according to their families. And their border was etc., Verses 29-30.

AND NEBO, AND BAAL-MEON — THEIR NAMES BEING CHANGED. “Nebo and Baal-meon were names of idols, and the Amorites used to call their cities by the names of their idols, therefore the children of Reuben changed [the names of these cities and gave them] different names, this being the meaning of the expression their names being changed, which means that Nebo and Baal-meon were changed to other names.” This is Rashi’s language. But the [concluding part of this] verse which says, and they called their names unto the cities which they builded refers to all the cities [mentioned there], and not only to Nebo and Baal-meon [and therefore the phrase their names being changed cannot be understood as Rashi explained it]. Furthermore, what sense would there be in Scripture mentioning the cities [only] by the names of their idols, and saying that the children of Reuben built them and changed their names, without mentioning the good names which they were [now] given! And indeed it is quite usual for Scripture when speaking about [any] captured cities to mention always the new names [given them, as in the following cases]: and they called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father; and he called them the hamlets of Jair; and he called it Nobach., Verse 42. And likewise wherever the name [of a city] was changed [for any reason] Scripture mentions [the new name as well, as it is said], Now the name of Hebron beforetime was Kiryath-arba; now the name of Debir beforetime was Kiryath-sepher., 15:15. The most likely explanation seems to me to be that these names [Nebo, Baal-meon, etc.] were the names of the cities when they were in the possession of Moab, and Sihon captured all these cities from the former king of Moab, for thus it is written about Heshbon, Dibon and Medeba, as it is said, We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished, even unto Dibon etc., Verse 30. This also appears to me to be the [meaning of the] words of Jephthah, when he said, While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns, and in Aroer and its towns, and in all the cities that are along by the side of the Arnon, this being the same Aroer [mentioned here in Verse 34] which they took from Sihon. Now when Tiglath-pileser the king of Assyria exiled the Reubenites and the Gadites, the Moabites returned and settled in their lands and cities, for we find in the Book of Jeremiah that when Nebuchadnezzar [king of Babylon] destroyed Moab, he conquered from them all these cities. And [the Book of Jeremiah] mentions by name Heshbon and Elealeh, Kiryathaim,, Verse 23. Dibon and Nebo,, Verse 22. Jazer,, Verse 32. Aroer,, Verse 19. and Baal-meon which is [there] called Beth-meon,, Verse 23. and Beth nimrah which is [there] called Nimrim, and Jahza., Verse 21. Thus you see that all these cities mentioned [in these verses] belonged [originally] to Moab, [and Sihon, king of the Amorites captured them from Moab]. Similarly in [the Book of] Isaiah most of these cities are mentioned when Sennacherib [king of Assyria] overran Moab, for he first exiled the Reubenites and the Gadites, and afterwards he overran Ammon and Moab. Therefore it appears that the meaning of [the phrase] their names being changed is that all these cities had [previously] had their names changed, because the Amorites changed their original names when they captured them [from Moab] and these [names] were their original names which they had when they still belonged to Moab. But the children of Reuben and of Gad still called them by [these Moabite] names when they rebuilt them. [This explanation is borne out by the fact that] the verse does not say, “and they gave names to the cities which they built,” but it says, and they called by names the names of the cities [which they builded], meaning that they called them by name with the same names which they originally had [when they were still under the rule of Moab. This was] because they wanted to refer to them by the names with which they had previously been known, either in order to shame Moab, or, as our Rabbis have mentioned, means that they were changed by the children of Reuben and Gad, because their [Amorite] names were the names of idols. According to Ramban, the phrase refers to the Amorites, who changed the original Moabite names in an attempt to erase the Moabite origin of these cities. Since the Amorites gave them the names of their idols, therefore the children of Reuben and Gad reverted to the original Moabite names in order not to have to mention the names of idols, or, as Ramban suggests, in order to shame the Moabites. because [they did not want to use the Amorite names since] the Amorites used to call their cities by the names of their idols. However, we do not find that Joshua changed the names of the cities which he captured.
AND SIBMAH. The meaning of this is that “they built Sibmah,” but it was not [a city] whose name was changed.

AND JAIR THE SON OF MENASHEH. This man [who was in fact from the tribe of Judah, as will be explained] is [here] traced back by genealogy to his mother’s family [Menasheh], because he took his inheritance together with them [i.e., the children of Menasheh]. And in the Book of Chronicles it says explicitly that he was a son, Verse 22). of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, and his mother was the daughter of Machir the son of Menasheh, as it says, And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead; whom he took to wife when he was threeescore years old, and she bore him Segub. And Segub begot Jair, who had three and twenty cities in the land of Gilead; and it is [further] written, And Geshur and Aram took the hamlets of Jair from them, Kenath, and the villages thereof, even threescore cities. All these were the sons of Machir the father of Gilead., Verse 23. From this [fact that Kenath is here described as being amongst ‘the hamlets of Jair’] it would appear that Nobach [mentioned here in Verse 42] who conquered Kenath and the villages thereof was a son of Jair, [although it is not mentioned here], and therefore these cities were also called ‘the hamlets of Jair.’ is: “Nobach called it [i.e., Kenath and the villages thereof] by his name” [i.e., by the name of Jair — his father — mentioned in the previous verse]; hence these towns also came to be called ‘the hamlets of Jair,’ as they are described in I Chronicles ibid. And the meaning of the verse, And Moses gave Gilead unto Machir the son of Menasheh is [not “unto Machir” himself, but unto] his family, for it was his sons who conquered it.. Similarly, And unto Machir I gave Gilead means “unto the Machirites,” for since Machir was an honored man and the chief of all his descendants, therefore his children were called by his name, and in the same way the verses refer to the heads of the tribes in connection with the inheritance [given to their children]: southward it was Ephraim’s, and northward it was Menasheh’s. So also: The land of Tappuah belonged to Menasheh etc., Verse 8. And when Scripture says in the Book of Joshua, And this was the lot for the tribe of Menasheh; for he was the firstborn of Joseph. As for Machir the firstborn of Menasheh, the father of Gilead, because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan,, Verse 1. it also refers to his sons, who were men of war, for it was they who went to Gilead and conquered it, and therefore Moses gave them a great part of these lands. Perhaps Machir was still alive [at the time of the division of the Land in the days of Joshua], for the decree [against the generation] of the wilderness [resulting from the incident of the spies, that they were to die in the desert] had not been decreed upon him, as he was not amongst those counted by Moses and Aaron, being he was more than sixty years old [at the time of the first census after the exodus], and he enjoyed longevity as did the earlier generations.

VAYIKRA LAH NOBACH’ (AND HE CALLED IT NOBACH). “[The word lah] has no dot in the [letter] hei [as it usually has when it means “to it”]. And I have seen in the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher, Note 146. that because it did not keep this name permanently, therefore [the letter hei in the word lah] is pronounced softly [without the dot], and the interpretation implied is [as if it said] lo [meaning “not”]. But I am astonished at this, for what interpretation will he [Rabbi Moshe the Preacher] give in the case of two other similar words: ‘Vayomer lah Boaz’ (And Boaz said to her); ‘livnoth lah bayith’ (to build her a house) [in both of which places the word lah is also written without a dot in the letter hei]!” This is the language of Rashi. Now although the Rabbi [Rashi] is “like a filled treasury of knowledge” of Torah, Halachoth and Agadoth, yet the explanation of the Rabbis in Midrash Ruth escaped his attention, [for they remarked on the verse: “Though I [Ruth] be not as one of thy handmaids. Said Boaz to Ruth: Far be it from me [to consider you like one of the handmaids!] You are not like one of the handmaids, but like one of the matriarchs! (and Boaz said to her), which follows Ruth’s remark [though I be not as one of thy handmaids] is written without the dot in the letter hei, the idea being, as Rabbi Moshe the Preacher explained, to convey the thought of lo, meaning a negation. Boaz is therefore saying to Ruth: “‘Lo’ — it is not as you say that you are like one of the handmaids in my eyes; on the contrary, you are like one of the matriarchs, and you are destined to be the ancestress of kings.” Similarly, And Nobach went and conquered Kenath, and the villages thereof, ‘vayikra lah Nobach bi’shmo’ (and he called it Nobach, after his own name) — this [lack of the dot in the letter hei] indicates that this name did not remain. So also, And he said unto me: To build ‘lah’(for her) a house in the land of Shinar — this teaches us that falsehood does not lead to any salvation.” [messengers] bear the measure? (Zechariah 5:10) he received the answer: ‘livnoth lah bayith’ (to build her a house) in Shinar [which is another name for Babylon]. Now since the word lah is written without the dot in the letter hei, the Rabbis interpreted that this is a negation, as if it said lo, conveying the idea that one may build a house of falsehood, but it will not last. — Thus the Midrash explains both the verses which Rashi found difficult. Thus far is the Agadah. And similarly in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin the Rabbis said [with reference to the measure seen by the prophet Zechariah]: [messengers] bear the measure? (Zechariah 5:10) he received the answer: ‘livnoth lah bayith’ (to build her a house) in Shinar [which is another name for Babylon]. Now since the word lah is written without the dot in the letter hei, the Rabbis interpreted that this is a negation, as if it said lo, conveying the idea that one may build a house of falsehood, but it will not last. — Thus the Midrash explains both the verses which Rashi found difficult. “This was the measure of flattery and conceit which came down to Babylon;” [Whereupon the Gemara asked that we find elsewhere that conceit settled in Elam, and the answer was:] “It indeed came down [originally] to Babylon, and became dragged along to Elam. You may deduce this also from the verse, ‘livnoth lah bayith’ (to build her a house),” [which is written without the usual dot in the letter hei]. Thus the interpretation is based upon the absence of this dot [in the letter hei of the word lah, which indicates] that the house [of flattery and conceit] did not last in the land of Shinar [but was dragged along the Elam]. Mas’ei