Joshua · Chapter 14

Which they divided unto them. Which they caused them to inherit.

"And these" – this implies: these are the cities mentioned at the end of the matter.

הַמַּטּוֹת (ha-matot, the tribes). The tribes.

"These are the ones who inherited." The most correct opinion regarding the nature of the division is that of the Raavad (quoted in the Shita Mekubetzet on Bava Batra, folio 117), and these are his words: "Know and understand that the Land of Israel was divided among the twelve tribes by lot, by Urim and Tummim. This is the question they asked (there, folio 122a) concerning the tribes: 'Should it be divided according to tribes, or should it be divided according to the number of heads of men?' They asked this regarding the division by lot, and it was resolved for him, between a large tribe and a small one (Numbers 26:56), that whether a tribe is numerous or few, it shall be according to the lot. But for the families, they did not resort to the lot, etc. Furthermore, a difficulty remains for us: If the portions were not equal, how did they divide by lot? And before the lot, how would it be known to whom it would be increased and to whom it would be decreased? And if the lot came out for a large portion to the small tribe, how would that be? It is not possible to divide by lot except for equal portions, either equal in measure, or equal in monetary valuation, or equal in land quality. We answer and say that they did not write in the lots anything other than the boundaries of the districts, just as we estimate: 'From the boundary of So-and-so and onward is the district of Catalonia, and from the boundary of So-and-so and onward is the district of Provence.' So they wrote the districts and placed them in the urn, and the district that came out in his hand, that was his portion, and according to whether it was large or small, they assigned him there. You know that this is so, for the lots fell first for Judah and the sons of Joseph before they divided the other tribes, and there were of the other tribes that fell between them. Hence you learn that they did not cast lots except for the boundaries of the districts,' end of his words. Behold, you see that his opinion is like that of Maharia, that the lot was only for the boundaries, and after it was known in which boundary the tribe would take, Joshua and the heads of the clans divided according to the number of heads, and a tribe whose men were numerous took a large portion, and this was not according to the lot but according to the knowledge of those dividing, see there in his words where he elaborated on this. (And what he brought in the Shita Mekubetzet, folio 121, in the name of the Raavad, who raised an objection against his approach from what is stated (Parashat Mas'ei, Numbers 33:54), 'And you shall divide the land by lot for your families,' and he inclined to divide that the division according to the men of the tribe was another lot that was not according to Urim and Tummim, is not compelling, for it is not difficult that 'for your families' refers below to 'to the many you shall increase,' meaning: first, 'And you shall divide the land by lot' according to the knowledge of the boundaries of the tribes, and afterwards, 'And you shall divide for your families, to the many you shall increase,' according to the division). And in my opinion, even Rashi stands in this approach, for see what he wrote (Parashat Pinchas, Numbers 26:53), 'To these the land shall be divided for inheritance, according to the number of names, to the many you shall increase,' etc., he explained: 'To the tribe that was numerous in population, they gave a large portion.' And even though the portions were not equal, for all was according to the multitude of the tribe, they divided the portions only by lot, and the lot was by the Holy Spirit, etc.' He says 'by the Holy Spirit' that if tribe So-and-so comes up, district So-and-so comes up with it, etc. (And the Re'em, Maharia, and all commentators of his words learned that his opinion is that the lot determined a large portion for the tribe numerous in population, and this is not so, for) his intention in what he wrote 'to the tribe that was numerous, they gave a large portion' is that Joshua gave, not according to the lot, and with this he means 'And even though the portions were not equal,' etc. (meaning: and thus the division according to the multitude of the tribe could not have been according to the lot, as it is stated 'to the many you shall increase,' meaning: you, the divider, nevertheless) 'they did not do except by lot' (the root of the division was by lot, and this is the explanation of 'But by lot shall it be divided' (ibid., 55)), and he explains that the lot says that if tribe So-and-so comes up, district So-and-so comes up with it, meaning that the lot determined the boundaries, and afterwards Joshua divided within that boundary to that tribe portions according to the multitude or fewness of the tribe. And similarly, what Rashi wrote (Parashat Vayechi, Genesis 48:6), regarding what is stated, 'Ephraim and Manasseh shall be to Me like Reuben and Simeon, and your offspring that you begot after them shall be yours,' these are his words: 'And even though the land was divided according to the number of their heads, as it is written, 'to the many you shall increase,' and every man and man took equally, nevertheless, only these were called tribes,' end of his words. The explanation is not that it was divided by lot according to their heads (as the Re'em understood, according to which his words would not be like the halakhic ruling in Bava Batra that 'for the tribes it shall be divided'), and similarly, his explanation is not that the lot was for the tribes and the tribe received a large portion by lot according to the multitude of its heads (as the other commentators understood), but rather he means: Even though Joshua and the heads of the clans divided according to the head count, and thus, what difference does it make that they will be like Reuben and Simeon, two tribes? He answers: Nevertheless, they will not be called tribes for the purpose that a special lot shall come up for each in a special boundary. Behold, I have shown supports and foundations for this opinion, and the plain meanings of the verses will be understood thereby easily, as will be explained each in its place, and only the Ramban has another approach, which the owners of arrows have attacked him for, surrounding him with their arrows."

“By lot their inheritance.” By lot He apportioned to them their inheritance.

Regarding "by lot": Here it explains how the lot was cast, and it does not speak of the division according to their number [i.e., per capita/head count]. As the Lord commanded. But by lot shall he divide the land: "For Moses gave..." This is the reason why it was only for the nine tribes: "And to the Levites." Do not err and think that the calculation of twelve included the Levites.

“Moses gave.” The text explains why Joshua allotted an inheritance to nine and a half tribes. It states that although Moses had given [an inheritance] to two and a half tribes, and did not give an inheritance to the Levites, because they were not to be given [land] as the Lord commanded, it follows that only eight and a half tribes remained eligible for an inheritance. Nevertheless, Joshua was compelled to allot an inheritance to nine and a half tribes.

For the children of Joseph were two tribes. In place of the tribe of Levi.

“for the sons of Joseph were two tribes.” If you were to say that the tribe of Levi was not given an inheritance, how were there nine and a half tribes and two and a half tribes beyond the Jordan? That makes twelve. And if Levi is not counted, how were there twelve? Therefore, it states: “for the sons of Joseph were two tribes,” and thus they are twelve tribes. “to their livestock and their property.” As its Targum renders it: “to their beasts of burden and their cattle,” meaning the large domesticated animals and the small domesticated animals.

"Ki hayu" (For they were): The phrase intends to say that since the sons of Joseph were divided into two tribes, there were therefore nine and a half tribes, apart from the Levites; but to the Levites, neither Moses nor Joshua allotted an inheritance. "To dwell." This means only to reside in them, but not to become entirely theirs.

"And their pasturelands." These are the buildings adjacent to the city, outside the wall, as if they had been driven out from it. "to their livestock." These are large cattle: And their livestock: these are small cattle.

"For the sons of Joseph were [two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim]." And they completed the number of twelve: "And they were not given." And even in the Land, they were not allotted a portion, only cities to dwell in; and therefore they are not included in the count.

"As the Lord commanded," [meaning] that they should not give an inheritance to the Levites. And they divided it. They divided it among themselves and did not give from it to the Levites.

As He commanded. And also in the other details, they divided according to the commandments of the Torah: "To the greater number, you shall increase his inheritance," and so forth.

"And the sons of Judah came near." To assist Caleb in asking his request. Concerning "me," etc.: that we may live and come into the land, and not die in the wilderness.

אֹדוֹתַי (odotai, concerning me). Its Targum: "iska dili" (a matter of mine); and likewise (Jeremiah 3:8): "al kol odot" (concerning all the reasons/matters).

Regarding "concerning me and concerning you": This means that at first it was stated (parashat Shelach, Numbers 14:22–24): "As for all the men who have seen My glory... if they see the land..." But My servant Caleb, because he had a different spirit with him and followed Me fully, I will bring him into the land where he went, and his descendants shall inherit it (and this may be explained as meaning that he would not die in the wilderness, and that his descendants would inherit their portion together with the other tribes). Afterward it was stated (ibid., verse 30): "You shall not enter the land... except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun." According to this, since it was mentioned afterward specifically that Caleb and Joshua would enter the land, why did He promise Caleb explicitly at the outset, "and I will bring him into the land"? Therefore, the meaning is that He would bring him into the land where he went, namely Hebron, and his descendants would inherit Hebron. And therefore he mentions what GOD said concerning Caleb and Joshua, from which it is proven that what was said at first concerning Caleb was to give him Hebron.

According as my heart was. And not according as my mouth was. For the spies were of one counsel, and Caleb feared to say to them that he would not speak as they do. And when he came, he denied them. And this is what is said there (Numbers 14:24): because there was another spirit with him, that he was saying to them one thing with his mouth and another in his heart.

"As it was in my heart." It appears that while he was with them until they came to the camp, he agreed with them in their words so that they would not kill him; and when he came to the camp, he answered with a true word, as it was in his heart. This is what he said: "as it was in my heart," and not "as it was in my mouth." And by way of derash, since he began to speak according to their words — as indicated by the verse's saying, "and Caleb silenced [the people]," — he began by saying, "Was this the only thing the son of Amram has done to us?" And they thought he was supporting them, and they fell silent.

"With my heart." For with his mouth he was in agreement with the other spies, for he feared them, and when he came before Moses, he contradicted them.

"And I brought back a report." He brought four reasons why he is worthy of this reward. A) In that I was a faithful envoy and did not respond to anything according to the sight of the eye, but only according to the sight of the discerning and distinguishing heart, and according to the choice to choose the good, and this is what it says: "according to my heart." B) In that I had tempters to entice me to sin, and this is what it says:

The word *himsiv*. It is written with a yod, which stands in place of the lamed of the verb [root], and its rule would be *himsiu*, with a shuruk on the vav, following the pattern of *natyu raglai* and similar forms. But here the yod is quiescent and the vav is mobile, contrary to the custom of the vav of the plural in the Holy Tongue. In the Aramaic language, however, it does occur this way, such as *ishtiyu chamra* ["they drank wine"]. And my brother, Rabbi Moshe, of blessed memory, wrote that it is in the pattern of Hif'il, and the vav stands in place of the lamed of the verb. He said: each of my brothers who went up with me melted [i.e., discouraged] the heart of the people.

"And my brothers." All the spies caused the heart of the people to melt [with fear]. "I have filled." I have completed the task of upholding the word of the Lord:

The word "himsiu" (they melted [the heart of the people]). It is derived from the term "hamasah" (melting): "I have filled." The matter of completion and finalization:

"And my brothers ... caused [the people's heart] to melt." And he stood against their enticements and did not fear the people, and this is what it says: "And I was filled." (And the word "himsiv" follows the Aramaic pattern of "atyu chamra" [they brought wine], for according to Hebrew style it should properly have been "hamsu," like "natyu raglai" [my feet had almost slipped] (Psalms 73:2), and its root is masah.) [3] From the side of the oath that Moses swore, and this is what it says:

"Where your foot has trodden." This refers to Hebron, as it is stated, "And he came as far as Hebron," and it does not say, "And they came," because the other spies were afraid to go there on account of the giants, as it is stated, "and there was Ahiman," etc., meaning that even though those great giants were there, Caleb went there. Therefore, Moses told him that Hebron would be his inheritance. And even though this is not mentioned in the Torah, it is known that it was true, since Caleb said so and Joshua affirmed it, and it is also written in Judges, "And they gave to Caleb Hebron, as Moses had spoken."

"If not." This is the language of an oath, as if he said: If this matter does not come to pass, then his punishment will be such and such. He exaggerated and did not state it explicitly. And similarly (Job 1:11): "If not, he will blaspheme You to Your face" [lit. "bless," used as a respectful euphemism for its opposite]. "Where your foot has trodden": This refers to Hebron, as it is stated (Numbers 13:22), "And he came to Hebron," and Caleb alone came to Hebron.

דָּרְכָה (darkhah, it trod). Its step, and it is from the word דֶּרֶךְ [derekh, path/way].

"And Moses swore." [D] From what we have seen, that God's providence corroborates this: [A] for behold:

This forty and five years. We learn that they stayed seven years in the conquest of the land, for in the second year Moses sent the spies, they remained thirty-eight years walking in the wilderness, and seven years in which they conquered, behold it is forty-five.

"The LORD has kept me alive, just as He spoke" — "and I will bring him to the land where he went." This makes forty-five. For the incident of the spies occurred in the second year after their departure from Egypt, and behold, they remained in the wilderness for thirty-eight years, and seven years they conquered; thus, the total is forty-five. From this, our Sages of blessed memory deduced that they conquered the land in seven years and divided it in seven years. They derived this from the verse: “Fourteen years after the city was struck.” For Israel did not count Sabbatical years and Jubilees until after they had divided the land. And the verse states that fourteen years after the destruction was the beginning of a Jubilee year, as it says in Rosh Hashanah: “On the tenth day of the month.” Which year has its New Year on the tenth day of the month? You must say that this is the Jubilee year. Come and calculate: from the time Israel entered the land, you will not find that the beginning of a Jubilee was fourteen years after the destruction, unless you subtract fourteen years from the time they entered until they divided it—namely, seven years of conquest and seven years of division. From the time that the Lord spoke. For in the commandment of God, Moses said to Caleb that Hebron should be his inheritance. “Which Israel walked in the wilderness.” Its meaning is: “These forty-five years which I have spoken,” namely, this long period from the matter which the Lord spoke until today. For Israel walked in the wilderness thirty-eight years on account of the sin of the spies. And Jonathan [ben Uzziel] translated it: “Who went with Israel in the wilderness,” explaining that “who went” refers to Moses.

“Who went forth, etc.” – During these years:

"And now, behold, the LORD has kept me alive." Even though forty-five years have passed, and I am today eighty-five years old. [B] From what:

"And as my strength is now." Two similar kaphs come one after the other, like "as the people, so the priest; as the servant, so his master," as if it said: the people are like the priest, and the priest is like the people. Similarly, "my strength now" is like "my strength then," and "my strength then" is like "my strength now"—all are equal.

"I am still strong today." This is because when he came to ask for Hebron, he feared that Joshua might respond, "Are you not old and has your strength not faded? How then will you conquer Hebron?" Therefore, he said, "I am still strong as before." As my strength was then. Just as the strength that was in me then, so is the strength in me today, both to fight in person, and to go out and come in before the people to instruct them in the strategies of war:

"I am still strong today." With a mighty heart, he shall not be dismayed before any, and also in physical strength, as my strength was then, so is my strength now. And what is meant by "as my strength was then, so is my strength now" is like "as you are, so is Pharaoh" (Genesis 44:18). But according to the proper rule of language, it should have been stated in reverse: "as my strength is now, so was my strength then," for always the first is likened to the second. Rather, he means that his strength was not known then until now, when he fought in battle and his valor became known, and he says that he estimates that his strength then was no less and no more, therefore:

"The Lord me." Just as it says "with me," and similarly "I will speak with you," and others like them.

"This mountain." This is Hebron: "On that day. When we went to spy out the land:" For there were giants there. And who can have the strength to fight against them? Perhaps the Lord will be with me, to conquer them and drive them out, as He spoke to give them to me.

Fortified. Strong ones, and it is from the language of "rock": "Me." [Meaning] "with me" — even though it is spelled with a cholam — and likewise (Ezekiel 2:1): "and I will speak with you." And I will dispossess them. And I will drive them out:

"And now, give me the hill country." For this is why He kept me alive and strengthened my strength, so that I may dispossess them, as GOD said, "and his seed shall dispossess it." Perhaps "The Lord is with me." It would have been fitting to say "itti" [with me], and one may interpret it like "the Lord is with me as a mighty warrior" (Jeremiah 20:11), which I explained as "The Lord is my sign," or from the matter of firmness and strength. "Therefore it (Hebron) became [his]." This means that he did not receive so much in his portion according to the per-capita share [lit. "the portion of the head count"]; rather, he received it as a reward.

"And He gave Hebron to Caleb." The meaning is the fields of the city and its suburbs, for the city itself was a city of refuge, as it states regarding the cities of refuge: "Hebron and its surrounding areas were for the priests."

"And He blessed him." That he should succeed in his battle against them. “Concerning Hebron.” The field of the city and its villages [were given to Caleb], but the city itself was a city of refuge, and it and its surrounding pasturelands belonged to the priests, as it is written below (verse 14):

“Al ken” – this means to say: it did not come to him as his portion and lot among his family and tribe, but rather it came to his portion because of this. He then goes on to explain: “because he was loyal to [the LORD],” etc.

יַעַן (ya'an, because). Because.

The great man among the giants he is. Their father of Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai. Arba was his name. Another explanation: after the father and three sons, for so he calls them (there 13:22): the children of the giant. And the land had rest from war. Referred to the first matter. After seven years they conquered their surroundings, the Amorites were subdued and did not gather again for war against them. Therefore they began to occupy themselves with the division of the land. And a midrash aggadah: the great man among the giants he is — our father Abraham — who caused them that the land had rest from war for forty years in which they tarried in the wilderness, in reward that they honored the old man in Kiriath-arba, when they said to him (Genesis 23:6): a prince of God art thou among us.

Kiryat Arba. "Arba" is the name of the giant, and he was the greatest man among the giants. It was quiet from war. For the children of Israel were too lazy to drive out those who remained.

Kiryat Arba. [Kiryat Arba means] the city of a man whose name was Arba, and he was the great man among the Anakim. The verse intends to say that even in comparison to the Anakim, he was considered great and tall in stature. "And the land had rest from war." It is as though He said: "Behold, this matter, although it is written here after all the wars, nevertheless, the event occurred during the time of the war, and only after this did the land have rest from war."

קִרְיָת (kiryat, city). From the words city and town.

"And the name of Hebron." It means that indeed there were giants there, for that reason it was called Kiriath Arba.