The land and its inheritances to be divided by lot, 1-5. Caleb having on his return from spying the land encouraged the people, Moses then promised him the land of Hebron, which he now claims of Joshua, 6-12; who grants his request, 13-15.
Verse 32: These are the countries which Moses did distribute for inheritance in the plains of Moab, on the other side Jordan, by Jericho, eastward.
[This possession he divided, אֵ֕לֶּה אֲשֶׁר־נִחַ֥ל] It is uncertain whether אֵלֶּה/ these refers to possessions, or tribes (Masius). It is able to be referred to things as much as to persons (Bonfrerius). [Hence they render it variously.] These are they to whom possession was given (Septuagint, Arabic, similarly Jonathan and the Syriac). Others thus: These are what he distributed (Munster, Tigurinus, similarly Pagnine, Junius and Tremellius, Castalio, Dutch).
[On the other side Jordan over against Jericho] See concerning this expression on Numbers 22:1 (Malvenda). It is called Jordan of Jericho, because these plains, situated on the other side Jordan, were looking toward Jericho (Masius).
Verse 33: (Josh. 13:14; 18:7) But unto the tribe of Levi Moses gave not any inheritance: the LORD God of Israel was their inheritance, (Num. 18:20; Deut. 10:9; 18:1, 2) as he said unto them.
[As He said, דִּבֶּר] דִּבֶּר is not rashly used of things other than ordinances of the greatest moment: which sort of weight is not in the verb אָמַר, to say (Masius).
 Hebrew: אֵ֕לֶּה אֲשֶׁר־נִחַ֥ל מֹשֶׁ֖ה בְּעַֽרְב֣וֹת מוֹאָ֑ב מֵעֵ֛בֶר לְיַרְדֵּ֥ן יְרִיח֖וֹ מִזְרָֽחָה׃
 Hebrew: מֵעֵ֛בֶר לְיַרְדֵּ֥ן יְרִיח֖וֹ.
 Numbers 22:1: “And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in the plains of Moab on this side Jordan by Jericho (מֵעֵ֖בֶר לְיַרְדֵּ֥ן יְרֵחֽוֹ׃).”
 Hebrew: וּלְשֵׁ֙בֶט֙ הַלֵּוִ֔י לֹֽא־נָתַ֥ן מֹשֶׁ֖ה נַחֲלָ֑ה יְהוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ ה֣וּא נַחֲלָתָ֔ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֥ר לָהֶֽם׃
Verse 29: And Moses gave inheritance unto the half tribe of Manasseh: and this was the possession of the half tribe of the children of Manasseh by their families.
[He gave] Understand, a possession (Vatablus).
[To the half tribe of Manasseh] Question: For what reason were seats allotted to them on this side of the river? Responses: Either, 1. with the Reubenites and Gadites they entreated for this inheritance; but this was not mentioned, because they were only half a tribe (Ibn Ezra in Masius). Or, rather, 2. this reward was also conferred upon the valor of Machir by Moses, who understood that the Manassite valor was remarkable in doing battle with Og, and that two so ample kingdom by only two tribe were not able to be occupied completely, nor to be defended adequately (Masius).
Unto the half tribe of Manasseh; not that they desired it, as Reuben and Gad did, Numbers 32:1, but partly as a recompence to Machir the Manassite for his valiant acts against Og; and partly for the better security and defence of the other two tribes, by so considerable an accession to them, which also was without any inconvenience to them, because the country was too large for the two tribes of Reuben and Gad.
Verse 30: And their coast was from Mahanaim, all Bashan, all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and (Num. 32:41; 1 Chron. 2:23) all the towns of Jair, which are in Bashan, threescore cities…
[This is the beginning] Hebrew: border, namely, of the allotted region (Vatablus). In describing the inheritance of these, as in the case of the others, progress is made from South to North. Now, even if the Northern limits of the Manassites are not found here, they are named in 1 Chronicles 5:23; Baal-hermon, and Senir, and mount Hermon (Masius).
[All the kingdoms of Og] Which were three, Argob, Bashan, and part of Gilead. Nevertheless, he is more frequently called the king of Bashan, under which the other two are understood (Lapide, Bonfrerius).
[The villages of Jair, חַוֹּ֥ת יָאִ֛יר] The villages (Jonathan, Septuagint), country estates (Junius and Tremellius), country districts, or, if you prefer, cities, of Jair. Concerning these see what things are on Numbers 32:41. Now, think that these places of Jair and Nobah were conquered little by little after the grant made to them by Moses: And, although the narrative is thus composed in Deuteronomy 3:4, as if all were seized in one assault; nevertheless, it is to be understood that Moses summarily reviews what things were done unto that day, but does not set forth distinctly the order of the things done. Moreover, it is to be marveled at that Jair obtained sixty whole cities among the Manassites, who it is certain was not of Manasseh, but of Judah, for he was a son Segub, grandson of Hezron, 1 Chronicles 2:21, 22. But he accompanied the Manassites, since he was begotten of a daughter of the Manassite Machir, a most famous man, whence he is also called a son of Manasseh, Numbers 32:41. Not by lot, but by the decision of Moses or God, this inheritance was assigned to him (Masius).
Jair, who, though of the tribe of Judah by the father, 1 Chronicles 2:21, 22, yet is called the son of Manasseh, Numbers 32:41, because he married a daughter of Manasseh, and wholly associated himself with those valiant Manassites, and with their help took sixty cities or great towns, Deuteronomy 3:4, 14, which thence were called the towns of Jair.
[Which are in Bashan, בַּבָּשָׁן] That is, in the region of Bashan; or, who was reigning in Bashan (Vatablus).
Verse 31: And half Gilead, and (Josh. 12:4) Ashtaroth, and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan, were pertaining unto the children of Machir the son of Manasseh, even to the one half of the (Num. 32:39, 40) children of Machir by their families.
[To the half part of the sons of Machir; understanding, were (Vatablus), לַחֲצִי] That is, to the half part (Arabic, Vatablus, Junius and Tremellius). It is not clear whether a lesser or equal part was on this side of Jordan. Neither does חֲצִי/half determine this. For it signifies one part of a thing, not only halved, but divided in whatever mannter (Masius). But why are those that were previously called the sons of Manasseh now called the sons of Machir, when it appears that Manasseh had two sons; Ashriel by his wife, and Machir by a concubine, 1 Chronicles 7:14? Responses: 1. If this were true, you might say that perhaps Ashriel died without offspring, and so the entire stock of Manasseh fell to Machir (Masius). Machir alone was surviving his father Manasseh (Lapide, Bonfrerius). Manasseh had no other posterity than of Machir, Numbers 26:29; indeed, he had no other son than Machir (Bonfrerius). Perhaps Ashriel was also a name for Machir (Masius). 2. Ashriel was not a son of Manasseh, but a great grandson, as it is evident from Numbers 26:29-31 (Masius, Bonfrerius), since that Ashriel had Gilead as father, and Machir as grandfather (Bonfrerius). But why, in reviewing the stock of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 7), the great grandson would be mentioned before the son, it is able to be done so that he might have the greater glory of that time from the matters conducted. 3. If these things do not satisfy, we might suppose that, while Manasseh had two sons, not the posterity of only the one, Machir, and then not the whole but half, remained on this side of Jordan (Masius).
The children of Machir; whom before he called the children of Manasseh, he now calls the children of Machir, because Machir was the most eminent, and, as it may seem, the only surviving son of Manasseh, Numbers 26:29; 1 Chronicles 7:14-16. For the other half of Machir’s or Manasseh’s children, see Joshua 17:1, etc.
 Hebrew: וַיִּתֵּ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה לַחֲצִ֖י שֵׁ֣בֶט מְנַשֶּׁ֑ה וַיְהִ֗י לַחֲצִ֛י מַטֵּ֥ה בְנֵֽי־מְנַשֶּׁ֖ה לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתָֽם׃
 See Numbers 32:39, 40.
 Hebrew: וַיְהִ֣י גְבוּלָ֗ם מִמַּחֲנַ֙יִם כָּֽל־הַבָּשָׁ֜ן כָּֽל־מַמְלְכ֣וּת׀ ע֣וֹג מֶֽלֶךְ־הַבָּשָׁ֗ן וְכָל־חַוֹּ֥ת יָאִ֛יר אֲשֶׁ֥ר בַּבָּשָׁ֖ן שִׁשִּׁ֥ים עִֽיר׃
 Hebrew: וַיְהִ֣י גְבוּלָ֗ם.
 Hebrew: וַחֲצִ֤י הַגִּלְעָד֙ וְעַשְׁתָּר֣וֹת וְאֶדְרֶ֔עִי עָרֵ֛י מַמְלְכ֥וּת ע֖וֹג בַּבָּשָׁ֑ן לִבְנֵ֤י מָכִיר֙ בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁ֔ה לַחֲצִ֥י בְנֵֽי־מָכִ֖יר לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתָֽם׃
Verse 24: And Moses gave inheritance unto the tribe of Gad, even unto the children of Gad according to their families.
[And he gave] Understand, possession (Vatablus). In these verses is described the portion of the Tribe of Gad. It was bordering the Reubenites on the South; the Ammonites and Arabian mountains on the East; the Jordan on the West; the Manassites on the North, on which side it was extended beyond the Jabbok unto Mahanaim (Masius).
Verse 25: (Num. 32:25) And their coast was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, (compare Numbers 21:26, 28, 29, with Deut. 2:19 and Judg. 11:13, 15, etc.) and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer that is before (2 Sam. 11:1; 12:26) Rabbah…
[The border, הַגְּבוּל] The boundary, that is, the allotted regions (Vatablus).
[Jazer] It designates the Southern border (Masius). It was rather on the eastern borders. For it was situated near the springs of Arnon, and mount Gilead, Numbers 21:32 (Bonfrerius).
[And all the cities of Gilead] This comprehends in a general way the possessions of the Gadites, especially the Northern possessions. For there was the entrance of Gilead (Masius). Question: How did all belong to the Gadites, since half of it is given to the Manassites? Responses: 1. That whole is limited by these words, and half the land of the Ammonites: that is to say, Only thus far upwards was it extended into Gilead, etc., as far as half the dominion of the Ammonites was including Gilead on the East (Masius). 2. A restriction is to be understood here, all the cities, namely, that were contained within the bounds assigned to them. See on verse 21 (Bonfrerius).
All the cities of Gilead, that is, all the cities of note and eminency; all cities properly so called, which it seems lay in that part of Gilead; and so this may well agree with verse 31, where half the country of Gilead is said to be given to the Manassites; but there is no mention of any cities there.
[And the half part of the land of the children of Ammon] Objection: But in Deuteronomy 2:19 it is said, I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon. Response 1: This is to be taken of that land which God granted to them, not of that which they had acquired through violence (certain interpreters in Lyra). But that land they had acquired by fighting against the giants, Deuteronomy 2 (Lyra). Response 2: Just as Sihon had taken a part of the Moabite domain, so also of the Ammonite domain, which, with Sihon defeated, the Israelites claimed for themselves by right of war (Lapide, Bonfrerius, Masius). This finds support in Judges 11:13 (Bonfrerius, Masius), and everywhere the torrent Jabbok is said to be the border of the children of Ammon. See Deuteronomy 3:16 (Bonfrerius). But one thing hinders, that in Numbers 21:26, there is no mention of Ammonites (Masius). But, what Scriputre omits in one place, it frequently supplies in other passages (Bonfrerius). Others say that the half part of the Ammonites is here mentioned, not because the Gadites obtained it, but because it bounded the possession of the Gadites on the East (Malvenda).
Half the land of the children of Ammon; not of that which now was theirs, for that they were forbidden to meddle with, Deuteronomy 2:19, but of that which was anciently theirs, but taken from them by the Amorites, Numbers 21:26, from whom the Israelites took it, Judges 11:15.
[Unto Aroer] Thus Judges 11:33. Jephthah smote the Ammonites from Aroer unto Abel-keramim. Therefore, near Aroer were the confines both of the Moabites and Ammonites, and also of the Midianites. But you will contend that the Ammonites did not reach to Aroer, because it is certain that the torrent Jabbok separated them from the kingdom of Sihon. But I respond that Jabbok, setting out not far from those rugged places through which Arnon (on the bank of which Aroer is everywhere said to have been situated [Bonfrerius]) rushes down, through a long course closes off a great part of the kingdom of Sihon from the Ammonites, although not the whole, which lies from Aroer to Mahanaim (Masius). From Jabbok to Aroer was extended this region of the Ammonites, taken from them by Sihon. Thus Judges 11:13, …from the borders of Arnon unto Jabbok (Bonfrerius).
Unto Aroer, the border between them and Moab.
[Which is over against Rabbah, עַל־פְּנֵ֥י רַבָּֽה׃] Upon the faces of Rabbah (Montanus, Jonathan, similarly Munster, Septuagint); before Rabbah (Syriac, Pagnine, Tigurinus); opposite to (before the sight of [Junius and Tremellius, similarly the Arabic]) Rabbah (Masius, Bonfrerius). Moreover, it is said that Aroer is opposite to Rabbah, evidently Rabbah of the Ammonites, that is, Philadephia, because, in accordance with that side of the Ammonites of which we now treat, Aroer, situated toward the South, looks toward Northern Rabbah (Masius). The latter was near Jabbok; yet the Israelites appear never to have possessed it, either because that city had not been taken from the Ammonites previously (by Sihon), or because they recovered it afterwards. But this explanation appears more than a little harsh and twisted, that Aroer is said to be over against Rabbah, that is, on the opposite boundary. Therefore, it does not displease to take this of Ar, metropolis of the Moabites: for this is also called Moab Rabbah, or Rabbath Moab, as Jerome testifies (Bonfrerius). Concerning Rabbah see Deuteronomy 3:11 (Malvenda).
Rabbah, the chief city of the Ammonites, 2 Samuel 11:1; 2 Samuel 12:26, 27.
Verse 26: And from Heshbon unto Ramath-mizpeh, and Betonim; and from Mahanaim unto the border of Debir…
[And from Heshbon, etc.] That is, From the south towards the North. He here describes the eastern side, in which he consumes more labor than in the rest, lest there be any suspicion that anything was taken from the Ammonites (Masius).
From Heshbon, either exclusively or inclusively. See before on verse 17.
[Unto Ramoth, Mizpeh: but it is to be read conjoinedly, as it is evident from the with, with no pause interposed, says Bonfrerius (correcting the Vulgate), עַד־רָמַ֥ת הַמִּצְפֶּ֖ה] It signifies the hill (or height [Malvenda]) of a watchtower (Masius), perhaps because the city was situated in a high place (Malvenda). This city is elsewhere called Ramoth-gilead (Junius, Bonfrerius, Malvenda); so called because it was in the region of Gilead. This has regard to the Northern boundary, just as Heshbon was on the Southern boundary; so that accordingly a longitudinal line is here drawn in the tribe of Gad (Bonfrerius).
Ramath-mizpeh, called Ramoth-gilead, or Ramoth in Gilead, Joshua 20:8, and elsewhere.
[And Betonim] It is likely that it was near Ramath-mizpeh. It appears to have been named after a species of tree. If the נ/Nun could be used as in the place of a מ/Mem, I would decisively judge it to be a terebinth, making the inference from the language of the Syrians (Masius).
[From Manaim] Mahanaim. This city was situated in the Northern extremity, that is, not far from the torrent Jabbok, as it is evident from Genesis 32 (Bonfrerius, Masius). It is no hindrance that that place was on the other side of the Jabbok, and so appears not to have been in the lot of the Tribe of Gad, which was bounded by the torrent Jabbok, as is evident from Deuteronomy 3:16, for nothing prevents the description of any region, whether of longitude or latitude, from being taken from extrinsic citys and places, provided that they be near the border. I add that this city appears to have been in the Tribe of Gad, because it was next to the torrent, as is indicated by Joshua 21:38, unless one should said that it was on the common border of two tribes, and pertained to both tribes (Bonfrerius). This city shows that the inheritance of the Gadites was not precisely defined by the stream Jabbok (Masius).
Mahanaim, exclusively; for Mahanaim was in the portion of Manasseh, beyond Jabbok, which was the border of Gad and Manasseh.
[Unto the borders of Debir] The extreme Northern boundary is here described: Mahanaim was on the northern corner closest to the East: but Debir was near the mouth of Jabbok, where it flows out into Jordan (Masius). But, if we believe Adrichomius, this is a description of longitude toward the West. The matter is obscure, because it not able to be known easily where that Debir was, since it occurs nowhere else in Scripture (Bonfrerius).
Verse 27: And in the valley, (Num. 32:36) Beth-aram, and Beth-nimrah, (Gen. 33:17; 1 Kings 7:46) and Succoth, and Zaphon, the rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshbon, Jordan and his border, even unto the edge (Num. 34:11) of the sea of Chinnereth on the other side Jordan eastward.
[In the valley (thus Montanus, Junius and Tremellius, Syriac, Munster, Tigurinus), וּבָעֵמֶק] And in the plain (Vatablus, Jonathan), or, in a level place (Vatablus).
[Beth-aram] Beth-haram, elsewhere Beth-haran (Numbers 32:36), appears to have been named after some man, whose name was Haram, or Haran (Masius).
[Beth-nimrah] It signifies house of the leopard, whence Isaiah called it נִמְרִים/Nimrim, that is, Leopards, Isaiah 15:6, while he commends it for its waters and rich pasture-lands (Masius).
[And Zaphon the remaining part of the kingdom of Sihon,וְצָפ֗וֹן יֶ֚תֶר מַמְלְכ֗וּת סִיחוֹן֙] And Zaphon, the remainder (or, the remains [Munster, Tigurinus], or, and the rest [Septuagint, Arabic]) of the kingdom of Sihon (Pagnine, Montanus); and the Northern tract remaining of the kingdom of Sihon (Junius and Tremellius), or, and the Northern tract, the remainder of the kingdom, etc. (Piscator); and unto the Northern remainder of the kingdom of Sihon (Jonathan). The remainder, etc. Something is to be understood, of this sort, and, if I might say it in a word, the remainder, etc. (Vatablus). Now, it is called the remaining part of the kingdom of Sihon, because the Reubenites held the part closest to the South. It is also likely that these citys, in which order they are reckoned, occurred in the same progression. Therefore, Beth-aram was especially Southern, etc., and Zaphon was further North than the others (which also its name signifies). But that appears certain that all were situated on this side of Jabbok, since the plain of Jordan is mentioned, in which they would have been (Masius).
Rest of the kingdom of Sihon; the northern part of his kingdom.
Verse 28: This is the inheritance of the children of Gad after their families, the cities, and their villages.
 Hebrew: וַיִּתֵּ֤ן מֹשֶׁה֙ לְמַטֵּה־גָ֔ד לִבְנֵי־גָ֖ד לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָֽם׃
 Hebrew: וַיְהִ֤י לָהֶם֙ הַגְּב֔וּל יַעְזֵר֙ וְכָל־עָרֵ֣י הַגִּלְעָ֔ד וַחֲצִ֕י אֶ֖רֶץ בְּנֵ֣י עַמּ֑וֹן עַד־עֲרוֹעֵ֕ר אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־פְּנֵ֥י רַבָּֽה׃
 Judges 11:33: “And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards (וְעַד֙ אָבֵ֣ל כְּרָמִ֔ים, or, and unto Abel-keramim), with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.”
 A woodenly literalistic rendering of the Hebrew.
 Amman, capital of Jordan, was formerly Rabbah of the Ammonites, called Philadelphia during the Hellenistic period.
 From his commentary on Isaiah 15:1.
 Hebrew: וּמֵחֶשְׁבּ֛וֹן עַד־רָמַ֥ת הַמִּצְפֶּ֖ה וּבְטֹנִ֑ים וּמִֽמַּחֲנַ֖יִם עַד־גְּב֥וּל לִדְבִֽר׃
 רָמָה/Ramah signifies a high place; מִצְפֶּה/Mizpeh, a watchtower.
 See 1 Kings 4:13; 22:4, 6, 12, 15; 2 Kings 9:1, 4, 14; 2 Chronicles 18:2, 3, 5, 11, 14.
 Hebrew: וּבְטֹנִים.
 Hebrew: וּבָעֵ֡מֶק בֵּ֣ית הָרָם֩ וּבֵ֙ית נִמְרָ֜ה וְסֻכּ֣וֹת וְצָפ֗וֹן יֶ֚תֶר מַמְלְכ֗וּת סִיחוֹן֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ חֶשְׁבּ֔וֹן הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן וּגְבֻ֑ל עַד־קְצֵה֙ יָם־כִּנֶּ֔רֶת עֵ֥בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן מִזְרָֽחָה׃
 Hebrew: בֵּ֣ית הָרָם֩.
 צָפוֹן signifies north.
 Hebrew: זֹ֛את נַחֲלַ֥ת בְּנֵי־גָ֖ד לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֑ם הֶעָרִ֖ים וְחַצְרֵיהֶֽם׃
Verse 23: And the border of the children of Reuben was Jordan, and the border thereof. This was the inheritance of the children of Reuben after their families, the cities and the villages thereof.
[And was made the border] The limit, understanding, of the allotted region, etc. (Vatablus).
[The river of Jordan, הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן וּגְב֑וּל] Jordan and the border (Pagnine, Montanus, Malvenda, Jonathan). Jordan with the border, supply, its (Masius, Jonathan, Vatablus, Junius and Tremellius), that is, and the region adjacent to it (Vatablus). The sense: Jordan, with its territory, that is, adjacent cities, formed the boundary of the inheritance of Reuben to the West (Masius).
And the border thereof, that is, those cities or places which bordered upon Jordan. Compare Numbers 34:6.
[And villages, וְחַצְרֵיהֶן] And the farms (towns [Syriac], country districts [Septuagint], hamlets [Masius]) of them (Montanus, Jonathan, similarly Junius and Tremellius). It signifies places defended with no walls, in which, nevertheless, societies of man dwell (Masius out of Rabbi Salomon).
 Hebrew: וַיְהִ֗י גְּבוּל֙ בְּנֵ֣י רְאוּבֵ֔ן הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן וּגְב֑וּל זֹ֣את נַחֲלַ֤ת בְּנֵֽי־רְאוּבֵן֙ לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֔ם הֶעָרִ֖ים וְחַצְרֵיהֶֽן׃
 חָצֵר may be related to the verbal root חצר, to be present, or to dwell.
[And Balaam] This history is added to the slaughter of the five magnates, just as it is also in Numbers 31:8; otherwise little pertain to the purpose here. But, as the benefits of God toward the pious are never sufficiently commemorated, so also God’s just and severe judgments against the impious; so that some might be incited to virtue, and others be deterred from vices. It is certain that Moses proceeded from the waging of those wars to this distribution that we now handle (Masius). [What things Masius has here concerning Balaam, see in our Notes on Numbers 24; 31.]
The soothsayer; so he was in truth, though a prophet (2 Peter 2:16) in title and profession.
[With the rest slain, אֶל־חַלְלֵיהֶם] To (or upon [Jonathan]) the slain of them (Montanus, similarly Junius and Tremellius); with the slain, etc. (Munster, Pagnine, Tigurinus), that is, together with others slaughtered by them (Vatablus). Here אֶל/to means עִם/with, in the place of which it is עַל/upon in Numbers 31:8, as it is here in the Targum (Drusius).
Among them that were slain by them: See Numbers 24:25.
 Hebrew: וְאֶת־בִּלְעָ֥ם בֶּן־בְּע֖וֹר הַקּוֹסֵ֑ם הָרְג֧וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל בַּחֶ֖רֶב אֶל־חַלְלֵיהֶֽם׃
 Hebrew: הַקּוֹסֵם.
 Numbers 31:8: “And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain (עַל־חַלְלֵיהֶם); namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.”
Verse 21: (Deut. 3:10) And all the cities of the plain, and all the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, which reigned in Heshbon, (Num. 21:24) whom Moses smote (Num. 31:8) with the princes of Midian, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, which were dukes of Sihon, dwelling in the country.
[And all the cities in the open plain, and all the kingdoms of Sihon] Or, and the whole, or entire, kingdom of Sihon. [Thus all interpreters.] But only half of this kingdom fell to the Reubenites, the rest to the Gadites (Masius). Therefore, he does not mean to say that the Reubenites alone occupied the entire kingdom of Sihon, but that these cities all together were pertaining to the kingdom of Sihon (Lapide and Bonfrerius nearly out of Masius). Therefore, thus I translate, all the cities of the plain, which all were of the kingdom of Sihon, etc. (Masius). The ו/and [in וְכָל, and all] he takes for אֲשֶׁר/which; which is not unusual, but here appears harsh to me, and forced. Or, all the kingdom is here used of the middle part, as in some places of the greater part, and in other places of the lesser (Drusius). Now, he relates that all those places belonged to Sihon, lest any should be thought to be taken by the Moabites (Masius). Or, if you prefer, say that the Reubenites occupied all the cities and all the kingdoms of Sihon together that were contained within the borders allotted to them; a limitation of which sort also appears necessarily to be understood below in verse 25 (Bonfrerius).
The cities of the plain; opposed to the foregoing cities of the mountain of the valley. All the kingdom of Sihon; a synecdochical expression, for a great part of it; in which sense we read of all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, Matthew 3:5, and all Galilee, Matthew 4:23, and many others. Or, which all were the kingdoms of Sihon, that is, belonged to his kingdom. The Hebrew conjunction and is oft put for the relative particle which, as Judges 2:21; Proverbs 19:1; Ecclesiastes 6:12.
[Whom Moses smote with the princes of Midian] Upon the occasion of the mention of Sihon, there is a digression to the slaughter of the Midianite nobles (Masius). These are said to have been killed with Sihon, not because they were killed in the same battle, for Sihon is read to have been overthrown in Numbers 21, but these Midianite princes in Numbers 31; but because they were overthrown by the same Moses, with a like defeat, at almost the same time (Bonfrerius).
With the princes of Midian; not in the same time or battle, as appears by comparing Numbers 21:23, 24 with Numbers 31:8, but in the same manner. And they are here mentioned, partly because they were slain not long after, and upon the same occasion, even their enmity against Israel; and partly because of their relation and subjection to Sihon, as it here follows.
[Dukes of Sihon (thus Munster, Pagnine, Arabic), נְסִיכֵ֣י סִיח֔וֹן] Prefects of Sihon (Masius, Montanus), or, toparchs (Junius and Tremellius), or, princes (Jonathan, Syriac, Tigurinus). They are thus called because they were Sihon’s subjects yielding taxes and tribute (Lapide). Perhaps, together with the Moabites and Ammonites, with whom the Midianites were sharing borders, were Sihon’s subjects yielding taxes (although not subject to him by full right and authority). This is made probable both from this passage, and from this, that Sihon by war with the Moabites and Ammonites had wrested away a part their territory, who, hence being driven by power, does not appear to have been about to leave off, unless they at least be made subject to him as taxpayers: which same thing was likely done concerning the neighboring Midianites (Bonfrerius). In Numbers 31, these are indeed called the kings of the Midianites. But thus the Hebrews call those that have small domain, as the Latins call them regulos, petty kings (Masius). That is, They were Kings in Midian, but subjects of the empire of the great King Sihon (Munster). Now, these came to the aid of Sihon, either, as those subject to tribute (Lapide); or, because they had the Israelites as a common enemy (Masius, Drusius). Either, they had only prepared aid (Bonfrerius); or, if they brought it, with Sihon killed, they escaped by flight to their Midianites, and together with those they perished a little later (Masius, Lapide, Bonfrerius). It is not strange that the Midianites attended to Sihon, since Balak made use of them in hiring Balaam, Numbers 22:4, 5. It is likely that the Midianites excelled in handling matters with singular industry (Masius).
Dukes of Sihon. Question. How could they be so, when they were kings of Midian? Numbers 31:8. Answer. There were divers petty kings in those parts, which were subject to greater kings; and such these were, but are here called dukes or princes of Sihon, because they were subject and tributaries to him, and therefore did one way or other assist Sihon in this war, though they were not killed at this time. It is probable, that when Sihon destroyed those Moabites which dwelt in these parts, he frighted the rest of them, and with them their neighbours and confederates the Midianites, into some kind of homage or tribute, which they were willing to pay to him.
[Inhabitants of the land (thus Pagnine, Montanus, Septuagint, Jonathan, similarly Munster, Tigurinus, Syriac)] Or, dwelling in that land (Arabic, Tigurinus, similarly Junius and Tremellius), that is, not foreigners, generals summoned by Sihon from elsewhere. This is added, so that their fervent zeal in fighting for the homeland might be signified, which is wont to be far less in protecting the borders of stangers (Bonfrerius). Kimchi supposes that Sihon, while his affairs were prospering, also ruled among the Midianites, and that therefore those are called the prefects of Sihon, although they were Midianites (Masius).
Dwelling in the country; Hebrew, inhabiting that land, namely, Midian, last mentioned; whereby he signifies, that though they were subject to Sihon, yet they did not dwell in his land, but in another.
 Hebrew: וְכֹל֙ עָרֵ֣י הַמִּישֹׁ֔ר וְכָֽל־מַמְלְכ֗וּת סִיחוֹן֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר מָלַ֖ךְ בְּחֶשְׁבּ֑וֹן אֲשֶׁר֩ הִכָּ֙ה מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֹת֣וֹ׀ וְאֶת־נְשִׂיאֵ֣י מִדְיָ֗ן אֶת־אֱוִ֤י וְאֶת־רֶ֙קֶם֙ וְאֶת־צ֤וּר וְאֶת־חוּר֙ וְאֶת־רֶ֔בַע נְסִיכֵ֣י סִיח֔וֹן יֹשְׁבֵ֖י הָאָֽרֶץ׃
 Hebrew: וְכֹל֙ עָרֵ֣י הַמִּישֹׁ֔ר וְכָֽל־מַמְלְכ֗וּת סִיחוֹן֙ .
 Judges 2:21: “I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died (וַיָּמֹת, or, who died)…”
 Proverbs 19:1: “Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool (וְה֣וּא כְסִֽיל׃, or, who is a fool).”
 Ecclesiastes 6:12: “For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow (וְיַעֲשֵׂ֣ם כַּצֵּ֑ל)? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?”
 That is, the ruler of a local district.
 Hebrew: יֹשְׁבֵ֖י הָאָֽרֶץ׃.
Verse 19: (Num. 32:37) And Kirjathaim, and (Num. 32:38) Sibmah, and Zareth-shahar in the mount of the valley…
[In the mount of the valley (thus Montanus, Pagnine, Munster, Tigurinus)] In the mount of the plain (Jonathan). Which was situated on the mount of the plain, that is, on a hillock, which is in the plain (Vatablus). In the mountains of that valley (Junius and Tremellius). It signifies the valley of mount Abarim, or Nebo, in which God willed Moses to be buried, lest the Israelites, being more dutiful than was fitting, might bring that into the Holy Land; which it ought not to reach. For Beth-peor follows here, which was a place near to that valley in which Moses was buried, Deuteronomy 34:1-6 (Masius). He says that these cities was positioned in the mount of the valley to distinguish them for those that were in the plain, which were treated in verses 16 and 17 (Bonfrerius out of Masius). Now, that in the mount of the valley pertains to all the cities that were mentioned after Heshbon (Masius).
In the mount of the valley: In the mountain bordering upon that valley, which then was famous among the Israelites, whether that where Moses was buried, which was near to the place here following, Beth-peor, Deuteronomy 34:1, 6, or some other. And this clause is thought to belong to all the cities now mentioned.
[Ashdoth, Pisgah] But the rest join these words; Ashdoth-pisgah (Junius and Tremellius, Vatablus, Bonfrerius, Masius). See Deuteronomy 3:17 (Vatablus).
 Hebrew: וְקִרְיָתַ֣יִם וְשִׂבְמָ֔ה וְצֶ֥רֶת הַשַּׁ֖חַר בְּהַ֥ר הָעֵֽמֶק׃
 Hebrew: בְּהַ֥ר הָעֵֽמֶק׃.
 Hebrew: וּבֵ֥ית פְּע֛וֹר וְאַשְׁדּ֥וֹת הַפִּסְגָּ֖ה וּבֵ֥ית הַיְשִׁמֽוֹת׃
 Hebrew: וְאַשְׁדּ֥וֹת הַפִּסְגָּ֖ה.
Verse 15: And Moses gave unto the tribe of the children of Reuben inheritance according to their families.
[Moses gave] [Thus most interpreters.] Others: he had given (Junius and Tremellius, Masius), understanding, a possession (Vatablus).
[According to their families, לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם] Unto their families, or lineages; that is to say, for all and every one of their families, namely, what things were sufficient for them: not that Moses was distributing their possessions to the individual clans, much less to the families individually; for this was the duty of the tribunes, rulers overs tens, etc. (Masius).
According to their families: Dividing the inheritance into as many parts as they had families; but this is only spoken of the greater families; for the lesser divisions or distributions to the several small families was done by inferior officers, according to the rules which Moses gave them.
Verse 16: And their coast was (Josh. 12:2) from Aroer, that is on the bank of the river Arnon, (Num. 21:28) and the city that is in the midst of the river, (Num. 21:30; Josh. 13:9) and all the plain by Medeba…
[And the border was] Understanding, of their allotted region, etc.; that is to say, The region allotted to them includes, etc. (Vatablus). By border understand not the limits of the region, but the whole tract of the region (Bonfrerius).
[From Aroer] That is, exclusively; see verse 25: and Aroer was in the Tribe of Gad, Numbers 32:34 (Bonfrerius).
[On the bank of the torrent Arnon, עַל־שְׂפַת־נַ֙חַל אַרְנ֜וֹן] The נַחַל signifies torrent, not valley; for שָׂפָה, a lip, does not belong to valleys, but to rivers, that is, a bank (Drusius). Now, the following וְהָעִיר they translate, and the city (Septuagint, Pagnine, and others); as if it were different from Aroer: but it is the same city, as Jerome rightly observes. It is able to be translated from the Hebrew, from Aroer and the city, etc., so that that AND might be exegetical (Bonfrerius).
The city that is in the midst of the river; of which see Deuteronomy 3:16; Joshua 12:2.
[That leads to Medeba, עַל־מֵידְבָא] Near Medeba (Pagnine). Above, that is, next to, or near, Medeba. Thus Livy, upon the Numicius river (Drusius). Which lies near to the city Medeba (Vatablus); all the way unto Medeba (Chaldean). It is confirmed from this, that עַל/upon is the same as עַד/unto: in Genesis 49:13, עַל־צִידֹן, unto Zidon; in Psalm 48:14, עַל־מוּת, unto death (Drusius).
Verse 17: Heshbon, and all her cities that are in the plain; Dibon, and Bamoth-baal, and Beth-baal-meon (or, the high places of Baal, and the house of Baal-meon: see Numbers 32:38)…
[And Heshbon] The Reubenites had this in common with the Gadites, whence below it is said to be given to the Levites by the Gadites, Joshua 21:39. See Numbers 21:25 (Malvenda). But, if it was common, it was not able to be given by the Gadites alone (Drusius).
[Their hamlets, עָרֶיהָ] Her cities, that is, subordinate to her (Vatablus).
[Dibon] It is assigned to the Reubenites, but it appears rather to have pertained to the Gadites: whence Dibon-Gad, Numbers 33:45 (Drusius). But the city was situated on the border, and is therefore ascribed at one time to the one Tribe, at another time to the other (Masius, Bonfrerius). The same is to be said of Heshbon and some other cities (Bonfrerius).
Heshbon: this city and Dibon and Ataroth were upon the borders of Reuben and Gad, and therefore sometimes are ascribed to Reuben, as here, and Numbers 32:37, sometimes to Gad, as Numbers 32:34; 1 Chronicles 6:80, 81, by whom Heshbon, is said to be given to the Levites, Joshua 21:39. Possibly it and the rest were jointly inhabited by both tribes, as Jerusalem was by Jews and Benjamites.
[Bamoth-baal] It is the same as in Numbers 21:28. Baale-Bamoth-Arnon, that is, the Gods of the High Places of Arnon. בָּמוֹת/bamoth signifies high places, in which the nations worshipped their gods (Masius).
Bamoth-baal; of which Numbers 21:28.
[Baal-meon] Hebrew: Beth-baal-maon; it signifies the habitation, that is, the temple, or shrine, of Saturn, or Jove, or another tutelary god. Ezekiel, with Beth/house omitted, calls is Baal-meon, Ezekiel 25:9. Thus also Jerome, who writes that even within his own memory there was a large country district among the Moabites. Jeremiah, with the other part omitted, calls it Beth-meon, Jeremiah 48:23 (Masius).
Beth-baal-meon; called Beth-meon, Jeremiah 48:23, and Baal-meon, Ezekiel 25:9, part of the name being cut off, as is usual with the Hebrews.
Verse 18: (Num. 21:23) And Jahazah, and Kedemoth, and Mephaath…
 Hebrew: וַיִּתֵּ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה לְמַטֵּ֥ה בְנֵֽי־רְאוּבֵ֖ן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָֽם׃
 Hebrew: וַיְהִ֙י לָהֶ֜ם הַגְּב֗וּל מֵעֲרוֹעֵ֡ר אֲשֶׁר֩ עַל־שְׂפַת־נַ֙חַל אַרְנ֜וֹן וְהָעִ֙יר אֲשֶׁ֧ר בְּתוֹךְ־הַנַּ֛חַל וְכָל־הַמִּישֹׁ֖ר עַל־מֵידְבָֽא׃
 Thus, the and might be rendered even.
 History of Rome 1:2:6. The Numicius River was probably near Lavinium, a port city, roughly thirty miles south of Rome. It is said that Æneas was buried upon the banks of the Numicius.
 Hebrew: חֶשְׁבּ֥וֹן וְכָל־עָרֶ֖יהָ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּישֹׁ֑ר דִּיבוֹן֙ וּבָמ֣וֹת בַּ֔עַל וּבֵ֖ית בַּ֥עַל מְעֽוֹן׃
 Numbers 21:28: “For there is a fire gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon: it hath consumed Ar of Moab, and the lords of the high places of Arnonבַּעֲלֵ֖י) בָּמ֥וֹת אַרְנֹֽן׃, Baale-Bamoth-Arnon).”
 Hebrew: וּבֵ֖ית בַּ֥עַל מְעֽוֹן׃.
 מָעוֹן signifies little habitation.
 Hebrew: וְיַ֥הְצָה וּקְדֵמֹ֖ת וּמֵפָֽעַת׃
Verse 14: (Num. 18:20, 23, 24; Josh. 14:3, 4) Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave none inheritance; the sacrifices of the LORD God of Israel made by fire are their inheritance, (Josh. 13:33) as he said unto them.
[To the Tribe of Levi he gave not, etc.] Namely, Moses, as appears from a comparison with verse 33. Now, he is said not to have given because he had instructed Joshua to order that it be not given. For otherwise he would not have given to nine and a half tribes. Indeed, to the Levites are given cities and the surrounding estates; but not some one region, as to the others, in which by the cultivation of the land they might be able to take care of themselves (Masius).
He, that is, Moses, as is expressed verse 33, gave none inheritance, to wit, in the land beyond Jordan, where yet a considerable part of the Levites were to have their settled abode. This is mentioned as the reason both why Moses gave all that land to the Reubenites, and Gadites, and Manassites; and why Joshua should divide the land only into nine parts and a half, as was said, verse 7, because Levi was otherwise provided for.
[The Sacrifices, etc., אִשֵּׁ֙י יְהוָ֜ה אֱלֹהֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ ה֣וּא נַחֲלָת֔וֹ] The ignitions of the Lord, this is (or, they are [Pagnine, etc.]) his inheritance (Montanus, similarly Tigurinus, Dutch, Junius and Tremellius, Masius, Drusius, Jonathan, Syriac). The Synecdoche is twofold: one of species, a thing to be consumed by Fire, for whatever oblation; the other of the whole, an oblation, for a part of an oblation (Piscator, similarly Junius). The things burned is taken broadly here, whence Jonathan renders it oblations (thus the Syriac), and Jerome sacrifices (thus Munster) (Drusius). It καταχρηστικῶς/improperly signifies the oblations due to God, among which are the first-fruits and the tithes (Masius). In whatever way this might be meant, it signifies those things that were reserved for the sustenance of the Levites, who were not able to live of the things consumed and to be consumed by fire (Drusius). Now, what value God places upon the doing of this law He sufficiently shows, in that Moses declared it in a great many words and so often. Of course, He wants His ministers to be free from all ill will. Now, it is evident that the common people are wont to flay with jeers those that they see to be maintained publicly, as if by their own labor they feed the idleness of those. God forestalls that occasion of calumnies, since He inculcates that He feeds them from His own stock. It ought not to seem harsh, if tithes, etc., which citizens gave to their Kings in accordance with natural equity, God had commanded to be given to Himself, from whose mere liberality they were obliged to attribute whatever they might possess in goods. Moreover, although that disinheriting of the Levites was for punishment, Genesis 49:7, nevertheless, because God had pardoned that sin, He indeed confirmed that they were to be dispersed among the other Tribes, lest that prophecy of Jacob should be in vain; but in this way, that that dispersion should be done both with the highest dignity of them, and with the greatest usefulness of the entire Israelite race. But now, while it was necessary that the authority of the priests be highest, and with them despised sacred doctrine would not fare well, that one cause of dispersion, which is shameful, is everywhere concealed, and the other glorious cause is shown (Masius).
Sacrifices of the Lord made by fire; which by a synecdoche are here put for all those sacrifices and oblations, including first-fruits and tithes, which were assigned to the Levites; and this passage is so oft repeated and urged, to prevent those calumnies and injuries which God foresaw the Levites were likely to meet with from the malice, envy, and covetousness of their brethren; and to oblige all the other tribes to a cheerful and conscionable giving to the Levites their dues, to which they had as good a right and title as they had to their several possessions.
[As he said to him, לוֹ] Unto him (Masius). Concerning that, namely, the tribe of Levi (Vatablus). Now, He spoke these things in Numbers 18:20, etc. (Masius).
 Hebrew: רַ֚ק לְשֵׁ֣בֶט הַלֵּוִ֔י לֹ֥א נָתַ֖ן נַחֲלָ֑ה אִשֵּׁ֙י יְהוָ֜ה אֱלֹהֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ ה֣וּא נַחֲלָת֔וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּר־לֽוֹ׃