Chapter 12 in Sefer Yehoshua is a summary chapter. At the end of the previous chapter three things were stated: "וַיִּקַּח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת כָּל הָאָרֶץ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה' אֶל מֹשֶׁה", "וַיִּתְּנָהּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְנַחֲלָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמַחְלְקֹתָם לְשִׁבְטֵיהֶם", and "וְהָאָרֶץ שָׁקְטָה מִמִּלְחָמָה". The Malbim explains that these three matters are in fact headings for the three coming chapters: "Yehoshua took the entire land" - this is our chapter, chapter 12, which details all the conquests (and in the course of it also counts the conquests of Moshe Rabbeinu); "Yehoshua gave it as an inheritance" - this is the subject of chapters 13 and 14, and along with it the division carried out by Moshe on the eastern side of the Yarden is also explained; and at the end of chapter 14 it concludes with "and the land rested from war". Let us now look at our chapter, which deals with the first part.
וְאֵלֶּה מַלְכֵי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכּוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּרְשׁוּ אֶת אַרְצָם בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן מִזְרְחָה הַשָּׁמֶשׁ מִנַּחַל אַרְנוֹן עַד הַר חֶרְמוֹן וְכָל הָעֲרָבָה מִזְרָחָה׃ - And these are the kings of the land whom Bnei Yisrael defeated, and they took possession of their land on the eastern side of the Yarden, toward the rising of the sun, from Nachal Arnon to Har Chermon, and all the Aravah on the east.
Here the verse details everything that had been conquered up to now, and therefore it opens specifically from the beginning. And what is the beginning of the conquest of the land? It is not the beginning of Yehoshua but of Moshe Rabbeinu. Therefore the verse opens with the eastern side of the Yarden, with the lands of Sichon and Og.
סִיחוֹן מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן מֹשֵׁל מֵעֲרוֹעֵר אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת נַחַל אַרְנוֹן וְתוֹךְ הַנַּחַל וַחֲצִי הַגִּלְעָד וְעַד יַבֹּק הַנַּחַל גְּבוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן׃ וְהָעֲרָבָה עַד יָם כִּנְרוֹת מִזְרָחָה וְעַד יָם הָעֲרָבָה יָם הַמֶּלַח מִזְרָחָה דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הַיְשִׁמוֹת וּמִתֵּימָן תַּחַת אַשְׁדּוֹת הַפִּסְגָּה׃ - Sichon king of the Emori, who dwelt in Cheshbon, ruling from Aroer which is on the bank of Nachal Arnon, and the middle of the wadi, and half of the Gilad, up to Nachal Yabok, the border of Bnei Ammon. And the Aravah up to the Kinneret Sea on the east, and up to the Sea of the Aravah, the Salt Sea, on the east, by way of Beit HaYeshimot, and from the south beneath the slopes of the Pisgah.
All these areas make up the land of Sichon, from Nachal Arnon in the south up to Nachal Yabok, which is the border of Bnei Ammon, and it includes the Aravah up to the Kinneret Sea and up to the Salt Sea.
וּגְבוּל עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּעַשְׁתָּרוֹת וּבְאֶדְרֶעִי׃ וּמֹשֵׁל בְּהַר חֶרְמוֹן וּבְסַלְכָה וּבְכָל הַבָּשָׁן עַד גְּבוּל הַגְּשׁוּרִי וְהַמַּעֲכָתִי וַחֲצִי הַגִּלְעָד גְּבוּל סִיחוֹן מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן׃ - And the border of Og king of the Bashan, of the remnant of the Refaim, who dwelt in Ashtarot and in Edrei. And he ruled over Har Chermon and over Salchah and over all the Bashan, up to the border of the Geshuri and the Maachati, and half of the Gilad, the border of Sichon king of Cheshbon.
Here the verse moves on to describe the land of Og king of the Bashan, and with this it completes the detailing of the first conquests, those already carried out in the days of Moshe Rabbeinu.
מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד יְהֹוָה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הִכּוּם וַיִּתְּנָהּ מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד יְהֹוָה יְרֻשָּׁה לָראוּבֵנִי וְלַגָּדִי וְלַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה׃ - Moshe the servant of Hashem and Bnei Yisrael defeated them, and Moshe the servant of Hashem gave it as a possession to the Reuveni and to the Gadi and to the half tribe of Menashe.
Why does the verse emphasize twice "Moshe the servant of Hashem," rather than simply saying "Moshe" or "Moshe and Bnei Yisrael"? The Malbim explains: this teaches you that he did this by the command of Hashem. For seemingly the lands of Sichon and Og do not belong to Eretz Yisrael, and Bnei Yisrael are warned not to conquer lands outside the Land before they complete the full conquest of Eretz Yisrael, as brought in the Sifri. So too, the fact that he gave this land to the tribes of Reuven and Gad, he did this by virtue of being the servant of Hashem and by the command of Hashem, even though according to ordinary reasoning it would seem not to have been the right thing to do. The verse comes and tells you: this was done by the command of Hashem.
וְאֵלֶּה מַלְכֵי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן יָמָּה מִבַּעַל גָּד בְּבִקְעַת הַלְּבָנוֹן וְעַד הָהָר הֶחָלָק הָעֹלֶה שֵׂעִירָה וַיִּתְּנָהּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְשִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יְרֻשָּׁה כְּמַחְלְקֹתָם׃ - And these are the kings of the land whom Yehoshua and Bnei Yisrael struck down on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal Gad in the valley of the Levanon as far as the bald mountain that rises toward Seir, and Yehoshua gave it to the tribes of Yisrael as a possession according to their divisions.
Now the verse describes the conquests of Yehoshua. Note: it does not mention here the entire land, but only the portion that Yehoshua conquered in his lifetime, for in the next chapter we will see that considerable portions still remained whose conquest was not completed.
בָּהָר וּבַשְּׁפֵלָה וּבָעֲרָבָה וּבָאֲשֵׁדוֹת וּבַמִּדְבָּר וּבַנֶּגֶב הַחִתִּי הָאֱמֹרִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי הַפְּרִזִּי הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי׃ - In the hill country, in the lowland, in the Arava, in the slopes, in the wilderness, and in the Negev: the Chitti, the Emori, the Kenaani, the Perizzi, the Chivi, and the Yevusi.
The Malbim explains: in the list of kings before us there are many kings whose land Yehoshua did not conquer in his lifetime. The kings themselves were killed in battle by Yehoshua, but the land was not conquered. So it was with the king of Yerushalayim, the king of Gezer, the king of Beit El, Afek, Taanach, Megiddo, and Dor, in all of these only the kings were struck down, but their territories and lands were not yet conquered.
Some of the kings mentioned here have already been made known to us in the book: the king of Yericho, Yerushalayim, Chevron, Yarmut, Lachish, Devir, Eglon, Gezer, Livnah, and Makkedah, all of whom we saw in chapter 10, who were struck down at one time. The king of Chatzor, Madon, Shimron, and Achshaf, we saw in chapter 11. And the king of Beit El, although his death is not explicitly mentioned there, certainly died when he came to help Ai, as we saw in the conquest of Ai. So we have before us seventeen kings mentioned explicitly. And the remaining fourteen kings (out of thirty one) are included in what was said in chapter 11: "וְאֶת כָּל מַלְכֵיהֶם לָכַד יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיַּכֵּם" - "And Yehoshua captured all their kings and struck them down" - "all their kings" includes all the rest who were not mentioned explicitly. And those specified here in the verse are the greater and more well known ones.
Let us emphasize here what the Ramban writes in Parashat Masei (35:14). Seemingly there is a kind of "inflation" of kings here, thirty one kings in such a small area? The Ramban says: every ruler of a city is called a king, and it is possible that such was the custom in those generations, that every lord of a city was called a king. That is, each of those counted here is a ruler of a city, and as a city ruler he is called a king, for he reigns over that city. And so it was in ancient times. And Chazal say that there is in this an expression of the greatness of Eretz Yisrael, that anyone who was here even a ruler of a city was already called a king. In any case, the abundance of kings here teaches about the abundance of cities: at times there was a distance of only a few miles between one city and the next, and here a king and here a king, in each city a ruler of its own.
מֶלֶךְ יְרִיחוֹ אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ הָעַי אֲשֶׁר מִצַּד בֵּית אֵל אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ חֶבְרוֹן אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ יַרְמוּת אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ לָכִישׁ אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ עֶגְלוֹן אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ גֶּזֶר אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ דְּבִר אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ גֶּדֶר אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ חָרְמָה אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ עֲרָד אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ לִבְנָה אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ עֲדֻלָּם אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ מַקֵּדָה אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ בֵּית אֵל אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ תַּפּוּחַ אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ חֵפֶר אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ אֲפֵק אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ לַשָּׁרוֹן אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ מָדוֹן אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ חָצוֹר אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ שִׁמְרוֹן מְרֹאון אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ אַכְשָׁף אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ תַּעְנַךְ אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ מְגִדּוֹ אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ קֶדֶשׁ אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ יָקְנְעָם לַכַּרְמֶל אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ דּוֹר לְנָפַת דּוֹר אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם לְגִלְגָּל אֶחָד׃ מֶלֶךְ תִּרְצָה אֶחָד כָּל מְלָכִים שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד׃ - The king of Yericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Beit El, one; the king of Yerushalayim, one; the king of Chevron, one; the king of Yarmut, one; the king of Lachish, one; the king of Eglon, one; the king of Gezer, one; the king of Devir, one; the king of Geder, one; the king of Chormah, one; the king of Arad, one; the king of Livnah, one; the king of Adullam, one; the king of Makkedah, one; the king of Beit El, one; the king of Tapuach, one; the king of Chefer, one; the king of Afek, one; the king of Lasharon, one; the king of Madon, one; the king of Chatzor, one; the king of Shimron Meron, one; the king of Achshaf, one; the king of Taanach, one; the king of Megiddo, one; the king of Kedesh, one; the king of Yokneam in the Carmel, one; the king of Dor in the region of Dor, one; the king of Goyim in Gilgal, one; the king of Tirtzah, one; all the kings, thirty one.
In his work "Chomat Anach," the Chida explains why the word "echad" (one) is written by each and every king, which seems at first glance to be superfluous. This comes to teach us, as Chazal instruct, that every king, even if he had a vast kingdom at the ends of the earth, was not considered an important king unless he also had a kingdom in Eretz Yisrael, as it says "אֶרֶץ צְבִי צִבְאוֹת גּוֹיִם" (the land of beauty, the hosts of the nations). Therefore it is written "the king of Yericho, one," "the king of Yerushalayim, one": so that you should not think that the ruler of Yericho was a duke or a minister, of a lower rank. The verse tells you that he was called a king; the king of Yericho was considered a great king, with many countries under him, and despite all this he was named after the city in the land of Canaan and not after those countries. Therefore "echad" is written, to indicate that he was a mighty king, the singularly distinguished one of them all. And so it is with regard to every one of the kings.
In the work "Lev Aharon" a different explanation is offered: "echad" comes to teach that each one of them was independent unto himself. One might have thought that they were all dependent on one another, and that if one fell, the others would automatically fall as well, since each one leaned on his fellow. The verse comes and says it is not so: "the king of Yericho, one," "the king of Yerushalayim, one" - each one of them was independent of the others, each one standing on his own, and there was a great wonder in this, that Yehoshua conquered them all.
In the Midrash Rabbah on Parashat Vayera it is brought: Rabbi Berechya and Rabbi Chelbo and Rabbi Parnach in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: "the king of Yericho, one" - what does the word "echad" (one) come to teach? Rather, it means him and his deputy (antikser). That is, apart from the king himself there was also an important minister with him, a viceroy to the king. "The king of Yericho" refers to the king, and "echad" means and one more. And so it was with all the kings: the king and one more, who was the viceroy and his important minister. It turns out that in total there were sixty-two kings, since with each principal king there was one additional king.
The Chida adds that the fact that there were here thirty-one kings comes to hint at the numerical value of "Kel" - alef and lamed, thirty-one. For Kel is angry with them, with the nations, while on the other hand the kindness of Kel hovers over the people of Yisrael.
The Gemara says: Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa said, Rabbi Shila of Kfar Tamarta expounded: All the songs are written as a half-brick over a full brick and a full brick over a half-brick, except for this song - meaning the ten sons of Haman - and the kings of Canaan, which are written as a half-brick over a half-brick and a full brick over a full brick.
Let us explain: "a half-brick over a full brick" is the manner we see in the Sefer Torah in the Song of the Sea and in the passage of "Vayisa" - the line is divided, there is an empty space between two segments of writing, and in the line beneath it, under the empty space there is writing, and under the place of the writing there is empty space. The "half-brick" is the writing, and the "full brick" is the blank place, the white space. All the songs are built this way, except for two: the ten sons of Haman and the kings of Canaan, which are writing over writing and blank over blank. In the ten sons of Haman, for example, the entire middle part of the column is empty - full brick over full brick over full brick; and on the right side all the words "ve'et" - half-brick over half-brick, and on the left side the names - likewise half-brick over half-brick. And so too was the matter of the kings written in Sefer Yehoshua.
And what is the reason? The Gemara says: What is the reason - so that there should be no rising up from their downfall. That is, one over the other, there is no recovery from their downfall, as if one buries the other.
We may add: The Ran points out that the Song of Haazinu is also written as a brick upon a brick and a course upon a course, the reason being that it too contains the downfall of the wicked, as it says "מֵרֹאשׁ פַּרְעוֹת אוֹיֵב", "כִּי דַם עֲבָדָיו יִקּוֹם וְנָקָם יָשִׁיב לְצָרָיו". The Maharsha in his Chiddushei Aggados likewise agrees with the view of the Ran. There is an additional way to distinguish between them: all the lines of Parashat Haazinu are long, and it is not truly comparable to the ten sons of Haman, for there is a large space in the middle marking the place of the downfall of the wicked; in Haazinu the place of the "course upon a course" is narrower, and therefore it differs somewhat from the kings of Canaan and from the ten sons of Haman.
The "Achiya Adam" relates that the Gra was once asked: Why does it say "that there shall not be a rising up from their downfall"? It should have said "that there is no rising up from their downfall." What is meant by "that there shall not be," as though it refers to something in the future, when all of these have already died? The Gra gave a lengthy answer there, and brought a proof from the matter of Pharaoh. The essence of his answer: all these kings, and all the sons of Haman, and all the officers of Egypt and the officers of the nations, are in truth ministering angels in heaven. And even though we have brought down the nation here below, many times the heavenly minister still exists. Regarding this we say "that there shall not be a rising up from their downfall" - that even though the nation here has been destroyed, we hope that the heavenly minister too will be destroyed. Therefore it is expressed in the future tense.
Chapter 12 is the summary chapter of the conquest. It opens with the conquests of Moshe Rabbeinu on the eastern side of the Jordan - the lands of Sichon and Og - and it emphasizes "Moshe the servant of Hashem," to teach us that the conquest and the granting of these lands to Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe were done by the word of Hashem and not by human calculation. Afterward it enumerates the conquests of Yehoshua on the western side of the Jordan, and details thirty one kings, seventeen of whom were specified in the previous chapters and the rest included in "and all their kings Yehoshua captured." Some of the kings were struck even though their land was not conquered in the days of Yehoshua. The Ramban teaches that every ruler of a city is called a king, and the multitude of kings teaches of the multitude of cities and of the excellence of the land; the Chida and "Lev Aharon" explain the recurring word "one" - the greatness of each king and his independence; and the Midrash expounds "he and his deputy." And finally, the manner of their being written, a brick upon a brick - that there shall not be a rising up from their downfall, neither for the nations below nor for their ministers above.