Matot answers

Matot 5716
Alef.

1.

במדבר פרק לג

(נ) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה בְּעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב עַל יַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ לֵאמֹר:

(נא) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם כִּי אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן:

(נב) וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם אֶת כָּל יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵיכֶם וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֵת כָּל מַשְׂכִּיֹּתָם וְאֵת כָּל צַלְמֵי מַסֵּכֹתָם תְּאַבֵּדוּ וְאֵת כָּל בָּמוֹתָם תַּשְׁמִידוּ:

(נג) וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ וִישַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ כִּי לָכֶם נָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ לָרֶשֶׁת אֹתָהּ:

Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places.

And ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein; for unto you have I given the land to possess it. 

Whereas the English translation installed in my computer defines the two terms "והורשתם" identically, Nechama, as implied in her Gilayon understands differently. While the usage of the word in v. 52 is “drive out the all the inhabitants of the land”, the meaning of the word in v. 53 appears to be “you will inherit the land.”

As for the question regarding the two clauses of the condition with respect to verses 52 and 53, it would appear that the consequence begins with the beginning of v. 53, i.e., once you drive out the indigenous peoples and destroy their religious artifacts, only then will you inherit and dwell in the land since God’s Intention was to Give the land to the Jewish people to inherit it, i.e., to possess it legally and permanently.

2.  Even if RaShI states as a rule that the term  והורשתם"” in the Hifil form connotes driving out people rather than inheriting the land, nevertheless when the text states explicitly “את הארץ” in association with “והורשתם”, then it is apparent that what is being spoken of is the inheritance of the land. An analogue is the assumption that whenever the term “עד” (witness) is used, it means two witnesses except when the text explicitly states “עד אחד”.

In order to prove that one cannot make hard-and-fast rules about what a word means in every situation independent of its context, but rather the context is important to define words that otherwise might be thought to mean something else.

ירמיהו פרק מח

(יא) שַׁאֲנַן מוֹאָב מִנְּעוּרָיו וְשֹׁקֵט הוּא אֶל שְׁמָרָיו וְלֹא הוּרַק מִכְּלִי אֶל כֶּלִי וּבַגּוֹלָה לֹא הָלָךְ עַל כֵּן עָמַד טַעְמוֹ בּוֹ וְרֵיחוֹ לֹא נָמָר: ס

יחזקאל פרק כח

(ז) לָכֵן הִנְנִי מֵבִיא עָלֶיךָ זָרִים עָרִיצֵי גּוֹיִם וְהֵרִיקוּ חַרְבוֹתָם עַל יְפִי חָכְמָתֶךָ וְחִלְּלוּ יִפְעָתֶךָ:

Although it is logical to assume that “emptying” applies to a vessel that was previously holding/containing something and no longer does, it can also be applied to an object that was previous enclosed by the vessel, as in the two examples cited above, regarding an “unsheathed sword” and wine “that was emptied from one container into another.”

3.  The “ו” of “והורשתם” would appear to function as a "ו ההיפוך", i.e., a letter that switches the past form of “הורשתם” into a future form—once you remove the native inhabitants in the future, the “ו” of “וישבתם” implies only then will you be able to dwell in the land without interference.

Beit.

1.  RaMBaN, in his commentary on the Tora, emphasizes the prohibition against someone who lives in Israel, leaving the country in order to live elsewhere. In his commentary on RaMBaM’s Sefer HaMitzvot, RaMBaN stresses how the land of Israel is not to be left in the hands of any other nation, while the Jews live somewhere else. In the latter situation, it is not about leaving the land, but rather never being there in the first place.

2.  With respect to “והורשתם”, RaShI interprets the word as focusing upon the removal of other nations from the land, whereas RaMBaN defines the word as a Commandment for Jews to possess the land. (It is an analogue to the metaphor of the glass being half-full or half-empty, is the emphasis upon the positive or the negative.)

3.  RaShI understands the two verbs, “והורשתם” followed by “וישבתם” as a reflection of the proper sequence of events, i.e., first the other nations have to be removed, followed by the Jews taking up residence in the land. RaMBaN on the other hand sees the second verb as defining the first, i.e., what does it mean for the Jews to inherit the land? To dwell in it and not to leave for another location.

4.  Ohr HaChayim thinks that the end of the verse supports RaShI against RaMBaN, i.e., since the end of the verse stresses how the land of Israel was meant only for the Jews and not for anyone else. This supports the approach that “והורשתם” focuses upon the elimination of other nations from the land rather than the possession of the land by the Jews.

Gimel.

1.  It would appear that “והורשתם” includes the implication that the Jews will live in the land. Consequently, “וישבתם” would be superfluous. קא משמע לן the first verb is about preparing the land for the fulfillment of the second verb, i.e., only once the other nations have been disinherited from the land of Israel will it be possible for the Jews to live in the land appropriately (without being corrupted by their neighbors and then being forced into exile.)

2.  The verse in its entirety:

במדבר פרק לג

(נה) וְאִם לֹא תוֹרִישׁוּ אֶת יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵיכֶם וְהָיָה אֲשֶׁר תּוֹתִירוּ מֵהֶם לְשִׂכִּים בְּעֵינֵיכֶם וְלִצְנִינִם בְּצִדֵּיכֶם וְצָרֲרוּ אֶתְכֶם עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹשְׁבִים בָּהּ:

But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that ye let remain of them be as thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein ye dwell.

רש"י

(נה) והיה אשר תותירו מהם - יהיו לכם לרעה:

Mizrachi on RaShI:

(נה) והיה אשר תותירו מהם יהיו לכם לרעה. הוסיף מלת "יהיו לכם", כי בזולת מלת "יהיו", יהיה פירושו, שאתם תותירו אותם בכונה שיהיו לשכים. ובזולת מלת לכם, לא יודע למי יהיו לשכים. גם פירש לשכים לרעה, כי אין כוונת השכים אלא הרעה, לא שכים ממש:

Siftei Chachamim on RaShI:

(צ) ר"ל לפי שבמקרא משמע שהם יותירו על מנת כן ברצון שיהיו לשכים. ועוד היאך שייך לומר על בני אדם שיהיו שכים דהיינו יתדות כדפירש רש"י. ומתרץ יהיו לכם לרעה ר"ל אם תותירו אותם יהיו לכם לרעה כלומר לא יהיו לכם לשכים ממש אלא לרעה להרע לכם:

Both commentaries on RaShI agree that the verse by itself could be interpreted as if it was saying that the Jews should allow some of the indigenous peoples to remain. Therefore RaShi comes to emphasize that should that occur, these people will prove to be “thorns” in the sides of the Jews, a metaphor for their constituting a negative influence upon the Jewish presence.

3.  The Targum on the verse:

תרגום אונקלוס במדבר פרק לג פסוק נה

)נה) ואם לא תתרכון ית יתבי ארעא מן קדמיכון ויהי דתשארון מנהון לסיען נטלן זין לקבלכון ולמשרין מקפניכון ויעיקון לכון על ארעא דאתון יתבין בה:

The verse cited by Divrei David:

במדבר פרק כה פסוק יז-יח

(יז) צָרוֹר אֶת הַמִּדְיָנִים וְהִכִּיתֶם אוֹתָם:

(יח) כִּי צֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר נִכְּלוּ לָכֶם עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר וְעַל דְּבַר כָּזְבִּי בַת נְשִׂיא מִדְיָן אֲחֹתָם הַמֻּכָּה בְיוֹם הַמַּגֵּפָה עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר:

The Targum on the verses:

תרגום אונקלוס במדבר פרק כה פסוק יח

(יז) אעיק למדינאי ותקטיל יתהון:

)יח) ארי מעיקין אנון לכון בנכליהון דנכילו לכון על עיסק פעור ועל עיסק כזבי בת רבא דמדין אחתהון דאתקטילת ביומא דמותנא על עיסק פעור:

RaShI on the verse:

רש"י במדבר פרק כה פסוק יח

(יז) צרור - כמו זכור, שמור, לשון הווה. עליכם לאייב אותם:

)יח) כי צוררים הם לכם וגו' על דבר פעור - שהפקירו בנותיהם לזנות, כדי להטעותכם אחר פעור. ואת מואב לא צוה להשמיד, מפני רות שהיתה עתידה לצאת מהם, כדאמרינן בבבא קמא (לח ב):

It seems to me that in the instance in BaMidbar 25, the text defines what the troubles were that the Midianites brought to bear upon the Jews, i.e., the Ba’al Pe’or plot to seduce the Jews into practicing idolatry and Kazbi’s involvement with Zimri in front of the entire Jewish encampment. However, in BaMidbar 33, it is unclear how the native inhabitants of Israel were going to cause trouble for the Jewish newcomers. By the Targum using the same word with respect to BaMidbar 25 and 33, suggests that it will be same sort of trouble.

Daled.

RaShI appears to treat the words “שיכים” and “צנינים” as synonyms connoting the pains, literally and figuratively, that will be caused to the Jews by these nations should they be allowed to remain in Israel.

RaMBaN sees the words reflecting a progression, each adding another level of problems and destructive outcomes:

a) “שיכים” Since these irritations will be directed at the eyes, the first step is that the Jews will be unable to “see” properly in terms of what they should and should not do.

b) “צנינים” Once a “blindness” will be effected, then the Jews will become despoiled by these nations, since the victims no longer are able to “see” what is happening to them.

c) “וצררו אתכם” They will finally place the Jews under siege, not so much from their attacks, but rather from HaShem’s, Who will Cause the Jews to go into exile due to their acting in the same manner as those nations whom they were supposed to supplant.