Introduction: A Chapter of Borders and Names
Chapter 15 of Sefer Yehoshua opens the division of the inheritances in western Eretz Yisrael, and describes the lot of the tribe of Yehuda. Let me note at the outset: the places mentioned here are very numerous, their names are many, and the commentators go to great lengths comparing them to one another. There are places mentioned in connection with two tribes, and one must clarify whether there were two places bearing the same name; there are counts of cities that need to be reckoned to see whether they truly add up to the number stated in the text. We will not enter into all of this, for a simple reason: we have no map. Had we a map before us, we could follow the border from point to point; without one, it is very difficult to picture the scene. Therefore we will focus mainly on the reminders and on understanding the changes of language in the verses, and whoever wishes may study the lengthy discussions of the commentators. Even so, in broad terms we can indeed gain a picture: which tribe settled in the south and which in the north, and so on.
The Southern Border: From Edom to the Wadi of Egypt
וַיְהִי הַגּוֹרָל לְמַטֵּה בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם אֶל־גְּבוּל אֱדוֹם מִדְבַּר־צִן נֶגְבָּה מִקְצֵה תֵימָן׃ - And the lot for the tribe of the children of Yehuda according to their families was toward the border of Edom, the wilderness of Tzin southward, at the uttermost part of the south.
The Malbim explains: Edom is located in the south of Eretz Yisrael on the eastern side; it is the famous red rock. The wilderness of Tzin is likewise on the southern side, but it is not opposite the boundary itself; rather, at the place where the wilderness of Tzin ends is where the southern boundary begins. This is why it says "at the uttermost part of the south" - it is not the very end, but only the edge of the south.
וַיְהִי לָהֶם גְּבוּל נֶגֶב מִקְצֵה יָם הַמֶּלַח מִן־הַלָּשֹׁן הַפֹּנֶה נֶגְבָּה׃ - And their southern border was from the edge of the Salt Sea, from the tongue that faces southward.
The southern border is described from east to west. The verse begins from the most southeastern point, namely the Salt Sea, which is both to the south and to the east of Eretz Yisrael, and from there the count begins as it crosses the land from south to north and from east to west. Notice how precisely the verse specifies from which place to which place each inheritance extended, so that in a later period disputes should not arise.
The Terms of the Border: Vayatza, Venasav, Veta'ar, Totza'ot
וְיָצָא אֶל־מִנֶּגֶב לְמַעֲלֵה עַקְרַבִּים וְעָבַר צִנָה וְעָלָה מִנֶּגֶב לְקָדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ וְעָבַר חֶצְרוֹן וְעָלָה אַדָּרָה וְנָסַב הַקַּרְקָעָה׃ - And it went out to the south side to Ma'aleh Akrabbim, and passed along to Tzin, and went up on the south side of Kadesh Barnea, and passed along by Chetzron, and went up to Adar, and turned about to Karka.
Here the Malbim teaches us a fundamental principle for understanding the entire chapter. Throughout the description of the borders we encounter different terms: "vayatza" (and it went out), "venasav" (and it turned about), "veta'ar" (and it was drawn), and more. The idea is that they would stretch a measuring cord from point to point. Wherever it says "and the border went out" - the measuring cord went out and swerved from the straight line to the side, inward or outward; that is, there is a protrusion there that enters as part of the tribe's inheritance, and the cord is not straight. Wherever it says "venasav" - it turned two directions like a dalet, that is, it refers to a corner, an angular place. And wherever it says "veta'ar" - the border circles three directions, such as a squared protrusion that the cord surrounds on three sides and returns to its place.
In light of this the Malbim raises a difficulty: here it says "and it went out to the south side to Ma'aleh Akrabbim," whereas in Parashat Masei it says "and the border shall turn about from the south to Ma'aleh Akrabbim." "Venasav" indicates two directions, while "vayatza" indicates only a protrusion. He resolves this by explaining that Ma'aleh Akrabbim was not opposite the tongue of the sea but drawn further toward the south, and then both expressions are correct: the cord went out from east to west and ran diagonally toward the south - and this is our "vayatza"; but since it is an angular place, there it says "venasav." And in this manner the Malbim resolves other places further on, which we will not detail here.
Another expression we will encounter is "totza'ot" (goings out). In Parashat Masei it says "and its goings out shall be at the south of Kadesh Barnea," and its meaning is: the place where that boundary ends, or where that protrusion ends. For example, a cord that runs straight and makes a kind of semicircle that brings another portion into the tribe's inheritance - the point where the curve ends and the cord returns to being straight is called its "totza'ot."
וְעָבַר עַצְמוֹנָה וְיָצָא נַחַל מִצְרַיִם וְהָיוּ תֹּצְאוֹת הַגְּבוּל יָמָּה זֶה־יִהְיֶה לָכֶם גְּבוּל נֶגֶב׃ - And it passed toward Atzmon and went out at the Brook of Egypt, and the border ended at the sea; this shall be your southern border.
Here too the Malbim addresses the difference between our wording "and it went out" (veyatza) and the wording in Parashat Masei "and it turned around" (venasav): the brook encircled up to the sea, and therefore here it says "went out," which is the meeting point, while there it says "turned around" because it circles back to the same place, which was a corner angle.
The Eastern and Northern Border
וּגְבוּל קֵדְמָה יָם הַמֶּלַח עַד־קְצֵה הַיַּרְדֵּן וּגְבוּל לִפְאַת צָפוֹנָה מִלְּשׁוֹן הַיָּם מִקְצֵה הַיַּרְדֵּן׃ - And the eastern border was the Salt Sea, up to the end of the Jordan; and the border on the northern side was from the bay of the sea, from the end of the Jordan.
"The eastern border" - the line was stretched along the eastern side of Yehuda, toward the Salt Sea, which is in the southeast. "Up to the end of the Jordan" - the width of Yehuda's border in the east reached only alongside the Salt Sea, up to the place where the Jordan falls into the Salt Sea; from there northward it is no longer Yehuda's border. "And the border on the northern side" - after describing the entire southern flank, the verse must indicate how far the northern side extended, since from there the next tribe begins. Therefore it informs us where the line cuts across Yehuda's inheritance on the north, from east to west: from the bay of the sea, meaning the end of the Salt Sea where it joins the Jordan, up to the Mediterranean Sea. This line crosses the entire border of Yehuda and constitutes its northern boundary.
וְעָלָה הַגְּבוּל בֵּית חׇגְלָה וְעָבַר מִצְּפוֹן לְבֵית הָעֲרָבָה וְעָלָה הַגְּבוּל אֶבֶן בֹּהַן בֶּן־רְאוּבֵן׃ - And the border went up to Beit Chogla and passed on the north of Beit Ha'arava, and the border went up to the Stone of Bohan son of Reuven.
What is "the Stone of Bohan son of Reuven"? The Radak says that the master of the place was named Bohan son of Reuven, and so the Targum rendered it "son of Reuven," meaning the name of a man who was the son of Reuven. And what is "stone"? Either the name of the place was Even (stone), or there was a large stone there to mark the border. This was often their practice in those times, to set up large stones to mark a border, since a large stone is difficult to move from its place, and no one can steal the border by moving it.
The Malbim explains that Beit Chogla itself was already outside the northern line and belonged to the border of Binyamin; whereas the "flank of Beit Chogla" belonged to Yehuda, as it is written later "and it passed to the flank of Beit Chogla." It emerges that Beit Chogla is one place and the flank of Beit Chogla is another place: Beit Chogla to Binyamin, and the flank of Beit Chogla to Yehuda.
וְעָלָה הַגְּבוּל דְּבִרָה מֵעֵמֶק עָכוֹר וְצָפוֹנָה פֹּנֶה אֶל־הַגִּלְגָּל אֲשֶׁר־נֹכַח לְמַעֲלֵה אֲדֻמִּים אֲשֶׁר מִנֶּגֶב לַנָּחַל וְעָבַר הַגְּבוּל אֶל־מֵי־עֵין שֶׁמֶשׁ וְהָיוּ תֹצְאֹתָיו אֶל־עֵין רֹגֵל׃ - And the border went up to Devira from the Valley of Achor, and turned northward toward the Gilgal, which is opposite the ascent of Adumim, which is on the south of the brook; and the border passed to the waters of Ein Shemesh, and its ends were at Ein Rogel.
The Radak says: the Gilgal mentioned here is also called Gelilot, and "Adumim" is likewise the name of a place that was known in their times. "Ein Rogel" Yonatan renders as "Ein Katzra," and "katzra" in the language of Chazal is the launderer. And why is the launderer called "katzra"? Rashi in the Gemara brings: because he shortens the garments. They bring him a sweater half a meter wide and receive it at forty centimeters, for it shrinks in the wash. So too Yonatan rendered "the field of washing." And why is the launderer called "rogel"? Because they were accustomed to rub the garments with their feet (raglayim) while washing, just as they would tread the wine with their feet. On this account the place was called Ein Rogel.
Yerushalayim, the Waters of Neftoach, and the Strip of Yehuda
וְעָלָה הַגְּבוּל גֵּי בֶן־הִנֹּם אֶל־כֶּתֶף הַיְבוּסִי מִנֶּגֶב הִיא יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם וְעָלָה הַגְּבוּל אֶל־רֹאשׁ הָהָר אֲשֶׁר עַל־פְּנֵי גֵי־הִנֹּם יָמָּה אֲשֶׁר בִּקְצֵה עֵמֶק־רְפָאִים צָפוֹנָה׃ - And the border went up the Valley of Ben Hinnom to the flank of the Yevusi on the south, which is Yerushalayim; and the border went up to the top of the mountain that faces the Valley of Hinnom to the west, which is at the northern end of the Valley of Refa'im.
The Malbim explains: this ascent continues until the spring of Mei Neftoach, and from there the border begins to descend. This relates to what Chazal said, that they wished to build the Beit HaMikdash at Ein Eitam because it was a higher place, but ultimately they said: since it is written "and He dwells between his shoulders," and the choicest part of an ox is between the shoulders (which is a slightly lower spot), therefore they built the Beit HaMikdash there. The spring of Mei Neftoach descended from above Ein Eitam, which is higher. And what is said, "the shoulder of the Yevusi to the south, which is Yerushalayim" - the Yevusi is the location of Yerushalayim, for Yevus was its original name.
וְתָאַר הַגְּבוּל מֵרֹאשׁ הָהָר אֶל־מַעְיַן מֵי נֶפְתּוֹחַ וְיָצָא אֶל־עָרֵי הַר־עֶפְרוֹן וְתָאַר הַגְּבוּל בַּעֲלָה הִיא קִרְיַת יְעָרִים׃ - And the border was drawn from the top of the mountain to the spring of Mei Neftoach, and went out to the cities of Mount Efron, and the border was drawn to Baalah, which is Kiryat Yearim.
We already noted that wherever it says "and the border was drawn" (v'ta'ar), it means that the border curves around from three directions. Here it encircles in a rounded shape and takes a curved strip from the portion of Binyamin into the portion of Yehudah, and therefore it says "and the border was drawn." This is what Chazal said: a strip extended out from the portion of Yehudah and entered the portion of Binyamin, and upon it the Mizbe'ach was built, and over this Binyamin the righteous one grieved and hovered over it all day long. The border "was drawn" and went out like a half circle and annexed the place of the Mizbe'ach to the portion of Yehudah, as it were at the expense of the portion of Binyamin. The Malbim adds: regarding Binyamin it does not say "and the border was drawn," because from his side the line took the form of the convex bulge of the circle rather than its concave curve, and therefore there it did not use the expression "was drawn."
וְנָסַב הַגְּבוּל מִבַּעֲלָה יָמָּה אֶל־הַר שֵׂעִיר וְעָבַר אֶל־כֶּתֶף הַר־יְעָרִים מִצָּפוֹנָה הִיא כְסָלוֹן וְיָרַד בֵּית־שֶׁמֶשׁ וְעָבַר תִּמְנָה׃ - And the border turned from Baalah westward to Mount Se'ir, and passed to the shoulder of Mount Yearim on the north, which is Kesalon, and went down to Beit Shemesh, and passed Timnah.
Here the verse returns to the original count, from east to west. The border went to the shoulder of Mount Yearim on its north, meaning the line passed to the north of Mount Yearim, and thus Mount Yearim itself was within the border of Yehudah, inside the line.
וְיָצָא הַגְּבוּל אֶל־כֶּתֶף עֶקְרוֹן צָפוֹנָה וְתָאַר הַגְּבוּל שִׁכְּרוֹנָה וְעָבַר הַר־הַבַּעֲלָה וְיָצָא יַבְנְאֵל וְהָיוּ תֹּצְאוֹת הַגְּבוּל יָמָּה׃ - And the border went out to the shoulder of Ekron on the north, and the border was drawn to Shikron, and passed Mount HaBaalah, and went out to Yavneel, and the endings of the border were at the sea.
וּגְבוּל יָם הַיָּמָּה הַגָּדוֹל וּגְבוּל זֶה גְּבוּל בְּנֵי־יְהוּדָה סָבִיב לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם׃ - And the western border was the Great Sea and its coast. This is the border of the children of Yehudah all around according to their families.
The inheritance of Kalev: "according to the mouth of Hashem"
וּלְכָלֵב בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּה נָתַן חֵלֶק בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה אֶל־פִּי יְהֹוָה לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־קִרְיַת אַרְבַּע אֲבִי הָעֲנָק הִיא חֶבְרוֹן׃ - And to Kalev son of Yefuneh he gave a portion among the children of Yehudah, according to the mouth of Hashem to Yehoshua, Kiryat Arba, the father of the Anak, which is Chevron.
The Malbim asks: everywhere it says "al pi Hashem" (upon the mouth of Hashem), so why here does it say "el pi Hashem" (according to the mouth of Hashem)? He answers that there are two other places where it says "el pi Hashem": in the portion of the daughters of Tzelofchad (below, chapter 17), and in the cities of the Leviim (chapter 21). The common thread among all three is that here there was already a prior command through Moshe Rabbeinu, and this is not a new command. When the command is new it says "al pi Hashem," according to what Hashem said now; but "el pi Hashem" indicates something that was already said beforehand.
We learn here another miracle: since Chevron was given to Kalev, Heaven saw to it that he would not dwell in a place distant from his tribe, but rather that his tribe would be near him. For he could have received a place, for example, in the north of the land; and Heaven saw to it that the place he received would be adjacent to his tribe, so that he would not have to be cut off from it.
וַיֹּרֶשׁ מִשָּׁם כָּלֵב אֶת־שְׁלוֹשָׁה בְּנֵי הָעֲנָק אֶת־שֵׁשַׁי וְאֶת־אֲחִימַן וְאֶת־תַּלְמַי יְלִידֵי הָעֲנָק׃ - And Kalev drove out from there the three sons of the Anak: Sheshai, Achiman, and Talmai, the children of the Anak.
Rashi explains that this took place after the death of Yehoshua, for in Yehoshua's lifetime Chevron was not captured, as is explained in Sefer Shoftim. Why then is it mentioned here? Because here the verse enumerates all the places they conquered, and therefore it also mentions those that would be conquered in the future. But the Malbim, in his way, explains differently: it took place during Yehoshua's lifetime. As for what appears in Sefer Shoftim to have been after his death, we have already explained that there is a difference between capturing the city itself and capturing the city's outskirts, and there the Malbim elaborates on the matter at greater length.
Devir is Kiryat Sefer
וַיַּעַל מִשָּׁם אֶל־יֹשְׁבֵי דְּבִר וְשֵׁם־דְּבִר לְפָנִים קִרְיַת־סֵפֶר׃ - And he went up from there against the inhabitants of Devir, and the name of Devir formerly was Kiryat Sefer.
Kalev did not want to leave gentiles in his vicinity, so that they would not trouble them afterward, and therefore he went up from there against the inhabitants of Devir. Chazal say that in the Persian language a book (sefer) is called "devir." It is implied from the verse that Kiryat Sefer was its ancient name and Devir its current name. Some explain why it was called Kiryat Sefer: because its air was spiritual and all its inhabitants were scholars, knowers of the book. And others said: that the kings would gather there for deliberations, and their words would be recorded in a book (sefer), and therefore it was called Kiryat Sefer.
וַיֹּאמֶר כָּלֵב אֲשֶׁר־יַכֶּה אֶת־קִרְיַת־סֵפֶר וּלְכָדָהּ וְנָתַתִּי לוֹ אֶת־עַכְסָה בִתִּי לְאִשָּׁה׃ - And Kalev said: He who strikes Kiryat Sefer and captures it, I will give him Achsah my daughter as a wife.
Chazal say that Achsah was exceedingly beautiful, and why was she called Achsah? Because whoever saw her would become angry (ko'es) at his wife, why she was not as beautiful as she. Whoever can understand what the reason for anger is will understand; but when a person is angry, do not ask him for reasons, he is simply angry.
Chazal further said that in that generation three thousand halachot were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moshe, and some say three hundred. At first they came to attack Yehoshua and said to him: In Moshe's time nothing was forgotten, and in your time halachot were forgotten. Yehoshua asked the Holy One, blessed be He, to reveal to him those halachot, and he was answered: It is not in heaven, halachot are not received through prophecy. He said before Him: What shall I do? He said to him: Go and occupy them with war. And since he occupied them with war, they no longer had a free mind to accuse Yehoshua of having forgotten. But the halachot themselves were forgotten and needed to be restored. And Chazal said that Kalev declared: Whoever restores those halachot will merit my daughter. And the one who restored them, as we shall soon see, was Otniel ben Kenaz.
And why was it not Yehoshua who restored them through his sharp analysis? Because against Yehoshua there was a claim that there was in him a trace of pride. Moshe said to him: I am now taking leave of you; if you have questions, ask. He said to him: Did I ever miss a single day of the study hall? All that you taught, I know it all. And there was in this some trace of pride, and therefore he was punished that those halachot were forgotten, and consequently their renewal too came not through him but through another. A further explanation: Yehoshua was busy with wars, and was not free to engage in Torah like Otniel ben Kenaz. A third explanation: Yehoshua was a prophet, and halachot are not renewed by way of prophecy; and had he told them halachot, they would surely have said to him: you received this through prophecy, and they would not have accepted it from him, for it is not in heaven. Therefore it was necessary that Otniel ben Kenaz come and restore them through his sharp analysis. And sharp analysis means: we have ways to reconstruct the Torah when it is forgotten - the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded, and the thirty two principles of Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, through which, if something is forgotten from the Torah, one goes and learns it from the sources by the methods of analysis, and thus it is possible to reconstruct all the halachot that were forgotten.
The explanation of the Arvei Nachal: the inner essence of the place is its portion in the Torah
The author of the "Arvei Nachal" asks several questions here, and from them builds a wonderful line of thought. First: how is it that in every place they went it was not difficult to conquer, and specifically here, in Devir, it was difficult for them, until Kalev needed to promise his daughter to whoever would succeed? Especially since all their conquests were supernatural. Second: "and the name of Devir formerly was Kiryat Sefer" - what difference does it make what it was called formerly? Why is that important to me? Third: "he who strikes Kiryat Sefer" - it should have said "he who strikes Devir," since today its name is Devir. Fourth: "strikes" and "captures it" - what is the redundancy, and why is one of them not sufficient? And fifth: what led Chazal to take the verse out of its plain meaning and expound that Kiryat Sefer refers to the three hundred or three thousand halachot that were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moshe and were restored by Otniel through his analysis? For according to its plain meaning there is here a war, and whoever conquers will receive Kalev's daughter. From where did Chazal come to find this matter hinted at in the verse?
And he explains: the entire conquest of the Land by Israel was a supernatural conquest, for the Torah is the pattern of the world, its blueprint. The Land of Israel is bound in a direct connection to the Torah, and every part of the Land of Israel draws its vitality from the corresponding part in the Torah. When the people of Israel receive the Torah and fulfill it, all the vitality of the Land of Israel is in their hands; and since the entire Torah is in our hands, consequently every part of the Land too is in our hands. Therefore they had no problem conquering - because we have the Torah, and consequently we have the Land, this is bound up with that.
And he adds: it is known that the inner vitality of every thing is its name, as it is written "and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." In the holy books there is enormous importance to the matter of the name, for the name expresses essence, and especially when speaking of His blessed names, for each name teaches about the mode of influence and the manner in which the abundance is attained through it. And this is what the verse says: "and the name of Devir formerly (lefanim) was Kiryat Sefer" - "lefanim" is not only in the sense of the past, but in inner essence (bifnimiyut). The name of Devir in its inner essence is Kiryat Sefer; the exterior is Devir, but its inner vitality is Kiryat Sefer, that is, its portion in the Torah, the portion that sustains it.
Accordingly: when at that time three thousand halachot were forgotten, this caused that place in the Land of Israel corresponding to the portion of Torah that was forgotten to be unconquerable. For we can only conquer that which we have grasped in its Torah counterpart. And since Kiryat Sefer, the portion in the book, had not yet been grasped, we likewise lacked the power to attain this portion in the physical realm too, and could not conquer the place called Devir. Therefore, when they arrived there, their strength failed them, and they had no vitality in that place.
This is why Calev says "whoever strikes Kiryat Sefer," and not "Devir": the intent is not to its earlier name but to its inner essence. What is needed now is to attain the inner essence, the portion of Torah corresponding to this place, that is, to restore the halachot through pilpul. And the seeming redundancy is resolved: "whoever strikes Kiryat Sefer" means he will restore the halachot; "and captures it" means that then he will automatically capture the city easily and in a single moment, for once the place's Torah counterpart has been attained, it is already easy to capture it in the physical realm. This is the meaning of "and Otniel captured it": Chazal say that he restored the halachot through his pilpul, and then captured that district, and let lips kiss.
Otniel ben Kenaz, brother of Calev
וַיִּלְכְּדָהּ עׇתְנִיאֵל בֶּן־קְנַז אֲחִי כָלֵב וַיִּתֶּן־לוֹ אֶת־עַכְסָה בִתּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה׃ - And Otniel ben Kenaz, brother of Calev, captured it, and he gave him Achsah his daughter as a wife.
There is a seeming paradox here: Calev is the son of Yefuneh, so how can he have a brother named Otniel ben Kenaz? It should have been Otniel ben Yefuneh, or Calev ben Kenaz. The simple answer, as Chazal answer questions of this type: he was his brother from his mother. Not a brother from the father but from the mother, that is, from two fathers. That woman was married to Kenaz and bore Otniel, and afterward married Yefuneh and bore Calev.
But the Radak brings another possibility: he was his brother from his father and his mother, and his father's name was both Calev ben Yefuneh and Kenaz, for often a single person is found to have two names. This same person was called both Kenaz and Yefuneh, and therefore Otniel is called ben Kenaz and Calev is called ben Yefuneh, and in fact Kenaz and Yefuneh are one person. The Radak brings a further explanation that is the correct one in his view: Kenaz was the name of the head of the family, and the members of the family were traced to him, and when it says "the Kenizite" or "ben Kenaz" it is all one. That is, the father's personal name was Yefuneh, but the family name was Kenaz or the Kenizite. The necessity for this explanation is that it is forced to say that a person is traced to his mother's husband, for that was not their way; rather they always traced brothers through the father.
Achsah requests a field
וַיְהִי בְּבוֹאָהּ וַתְּסִיתֵהוּ לִשְׁאוֹל מֵאֵת־אָבִיהָ שָׂדֶה וַתִּצְנַח מֵעַל הַחֲמוֹר וַיֹּאמֶר־לָהּ כָּלֵב מַה־לָּךְ׃ - And it was when she came, that she incited him to ask her father for a field, and she alighted from the donkey, and Calev said to her, What do you wish?
Achsah asks that her father give her a field, and this fits very well with all we have said. She says to him: you gave me a Torah scholar who is in the category of "you have given me the land of the Negev," dry, with nothing to support himself. If he is such a great pilpulist, and all his occupation and concern is only with the holy Torah and he has no interest in the physical realm, then I need a source of livelihood. Therefore she alights from the donkey, apparently in order to draw her father's attention, so that thereby he will give her the field and they will have a source of livelihood.
And the holy Alshich says: accordingly you will understand why Otniel is called here "brother of Calev." Ostensibly Calev is his brother, and Otniel is the one of merit who occupies himself with Torah, so why is he called by the name of his brother? Rather, it is as Chazal said, "Shimon brother of Azaryah": Azaryah would support Shimon's hands so that he could occupy himself with Torah, he was the helper and supporter, and therefore Shimon was called by his name, for the one who upholds Torah is regarded as the primary one, "in the shelter of wisdom, in the shelter of money." And since here Calev gave Otniel a field so that he would have a source of livelihood, Calev is in the category of Azaryah, and therefore Otniel is called "brother of Calev," the brother of the one who supports him, for they gave him the honor as one who feeds and supports the Torah scholar.
וַתֹּאמֶר תְּנָה־לִּי בְרָכָה כִּי אֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב נְתַתָּנִי וְנָתַתָּה לִי גֻּלֹּת מָיִם וַיִּתֶּן־לָהּ אֵת גֻּלֹּת עִלִּיּוֹת וְאֵת גֻּלֹּת תַּחְתִּיּוֹת׃ - And she said, Give me a blessing, for you have given me the land of the Negev, so give me springs of water, and he gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.
She requests: you gave me a field, but the field is dry of water. This is "you have given me the land of the Negev," a dry, parched place. As the Radak brings, its translation is "the waters dried up, the waters were parched," the waters dried up; a dry place is called parched. Therefore she requests "springs of water," a place that has springs by which she can irrigate the field. And "give me a blessing" can be interpreted as an actual blessing, an added good, which is those springs of water; and it can be interpreted from the word bereichah, pools of water and concentrations of water from which it will be possible to irrigate the field. And Rashi explained "blessing" as livelihood.
Our Sages expound: when she said "You have given me the land of the Negev," she meant: you have given me a home that is dried out (menuggav) of all good. And why? "And you shall give me springs of water" - you have brought me a man whose entire occupation is water, and water means nothing but Torah; he is entirely Torah, and so I have no economic sustenance. This is not like our times, when a kollel student still has some income, his wife works, and the like; in their days the woman did not work and the kollel student received no stipend, and so there was no means of survival. It turns out that you gave me a man dried out of all physical good. And regarding this, "and he gave her the upper springs and the lower springs" - our Sages say, as if telling her: the One who dwells above and below, should he ask Him for sustenance? It is assured that the Holy One, blessed be He, will help him, "and I have not seen a righteous man forsaken, nor his seed begging for bread," and you need not worry, for the Holy One, blessed be He, will provide his livelihood properly. And according to the plain meaning of the verse: in that place there were upper springs and lower springs - as we see that at Ein Eitam the spring gushes from a high place, while there are places where the springs gush from a low place - and he gave her both.
The Cities of the Negev and the Count of Twenty Nine
זֹאת נַחֲלַת מַטֵּה בְנֵי־יְהוּדָה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם׃ - This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Yehudah according to their families.
וַיִּהְיוּ הֶעָרִים מִקְצֵה לְמַטֵּה בְנֵי־יְהוּדָה אֶל־גְּבוּל אֱדוֹם בַּנֶּגְבָּה קַבְצְאֵל וְעֵדֶר וְיָגוּר׃ - And the cities at the edge of the tribe of the children of Yehudah, toward the border of Edom in the south, were Kavtze'el, and Eder, and Yagur.
"At the edge of the tribe of the children of Yehudah" - at the border of the tribe of the children of Yehudah. And our Sages say: Yehoshua counted only the towns that stood upon the borders, that is, he marked out the borders of all those tribes. From here the verse continues and enumerates: Kinah, and Dimonah, and Ad'adah, Kedesh, and Chatzor, and Yitnan, Zif, and Telem, and Bealoth, Chatzor Chadatah, and Kerioth Chetzron which is Chatzor, Amam, and Shema, and Moladah, and Chatzar Gaddah, and Cheshmon, and Beit Pelet, and Chatzar Shu'al, and Be'er Sheva, and Bizyotiah, Ba'alah, and Iyim, and Etzem, and Eltolad, and Kesil, and Chormah, and Tziklag, and Madmannah, and Sansannah, and Levaot, and Shilchim, and Ayin, and Rimmon.
וּלְבָאוֹת וְשִׁלְחִים וְעַיִן וְרִמּוֹן כׇּל־עָרִים עֶשְׂרִים וָתֵשַׁע וְחַצְרֵיהֶן׃ - And Levaot, and Shilchim, and Ayin, and Rimmon: all the cities were twenty nine, with their villages.
Here our Sages ask: you say twenty nine, but when you count them individually you find thirty eight! There are nine extra cities here. The commentators write that those nine were taken by the children of Shimon from the portion of Yehudah, that is, they did not truly belong to Yehudah but to Shimon; and the fact that they are counted here is not part of his portion, for his portion is only twenty nine. Proof of this is that these cities are mentioned in the inheritance of the children of Shimon: Be'er Sheva, Moladah, Chatzar Shu'al, Etzem, Eltolad, Chormah, Tziklag, Ayin, and Rimmon.
The Malbim finds difficulty with this explanation, and therefore explains that several cities that appear here are in fact one. Kinah, and Dimonah, and Ad'adah are one city: the main city is called Kinah, and its outskirts are Dimonah and Ad'adah. Likewise Tziklag, and Madmannah, and Sansannah are one city: the main one is Tziklag, and the outskirts are Madmannah and Sansannah. Likewise "Chatzor Chadatah, and Kerioth Chetzron which is Chatzor" does not enter the count, for all of these are an explanation of Chatzor: Chatzor Chadatah is the new Chatzor, and Kerioth Chetzron is part of Chatzor. Likewise Levaot and Shilchim, which the commentators counted as two, are in fact one, as he proves further on from the inheritance of the children of Shimon, where Levaot and Sharuchen are mentioned and they are one. It turns out that when you identify several names that are the features of a single city and its outskirts, or a single city and its descriptions, you arrive in the end at exactly twenty nine and no more.
Kinah, Dimonah, and Ad'adah: The Gemara's Exposition in Gittin
According to this, says the Malbim, you will understand the words of the Gemara in Gittin, page 7. Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: what is the meaning of what is written, "Kinah, and Dimonah, and Ad'adah"? He said to him: it is counting the towns of the Land of Israel. He said to him: do I not know that it is counting the towns of the Land of Israel? Rather, Rav Geviha of Bei Argeza gave a reason for it: anyone who has a grievance (kin'ah) against his fellow and stays silent (domem), the One who dwells forever (adei ad) will render judgment for him. He said to him: then "Tziklag, and Madmannah, and Sansannah" here too? He said to him: if Rav Geviha of Bei Argeza were here, he would give a reason for it. Rav Acha of Bei Choza'ah said about it: anyone who has a cry over a lost meal (tza'akat legimah) against his fellow and stays silent (domem), the One who dwells in the bush (sneh) will render judgment for him.
"Had you not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle," says the Malbim. On the face of it these are wondrous matters: there are twenty nine cities here, or if you wish thirty eight, so why did the Gemara expound specifically these names and not the rest? Rather, they knew that Kinah, and Dimonah, and Ad'adah is one city and its outskirts, its suburbs and its quarters, and therefore they wondered: why were the suburbs counted specifically here, while for the other cities he did not count the suburbs? To this he answered "it is counting the towns of the Land of Israel," meaning that he also counts the small cities. He answered him: do I not know this? Rather, it still requires explanation why specifically here. And to this Rav Geviha gave the reason: because in that generation it was common on their lips to say the name of the city Kinah together with its districts as a mnemonic, for their way was to attach a mnemonic to words of moral instruction. Therefore the prophet mentioned Kinah in the way they were accustomed to mention it with its districts, in order to remember thereby the moral lesson: Kinah - one who has a grievance against his fellow, Dimonah - and stays silent, Ad'adah - the One who dwells forever renders judgment for him. And when he pressed him, "then Tziklag, and Madmannah, and Sansannah," where too he is counting a city and its suburbs, he answered that there too they had a moral lesson: Tziklag - a cry over a lost meal, Madmannah - and stays silent, Sansannah - the One who dwells in the bush renders judgment for him. It turns out that specifically in these two he saw a need to expound, because here it is not a matter of city names but of outskirts and suburbs around it.
The Cities of the Lowland
וְשַׁעֲרַיִם וַעֲדִיתַיִם וְהַגְּדֵרָה וּגְדֵרֹתָיִם עָרִים אַרְבַּע־עֶשְׂרֵה וְחַצְרֵיהֶן׃ - And Shaaraim, and Adithaim, and Gederah, and Gederothaim; fourteen cities with their villages.
The cities that preceded these were: in the lowland, Eshtaol, and Tzorah, and Ashnah, and Zanoach, and Ein Gannim, Tappuach and HaEnam, Yarmuth and Adullam, Sochoh and Azekah. Here too Rashi comments: count them and you find fifteen. Rashi resolves this by saying that Tappuach and HaEnam are one: Tappuach and its ein, that is, its spring, since "ein" means a spring, and this is the "Ein Tappuach" mentioned elsewhere. Similarly "the head of the ein" is the head of the spring, and "and I came today to the ein" means to the spring. According to this, "Ein Gannim" too is the spring of the city of Gannim. The Radak, however, resolves it differently: Gederah and Gederothaim are one city, not as Rashi held regarding Tappuach and HaEnam, and thus we arrive at the count of fourteen with their villages.
וּגְדֵרוֹת בֵּית־דָּגוֹן וְנַעֲמָה וּמַקֵּדָה עָרִים שֵׁשׁ־עֶשְׂרֵה וְחַצְרֵיהֶן׃ - And Gederoth, Beth Dagon, and Naamah, and Makkedah; sixteen cities with their villages.
Before this it listed: Tzenan, and Hadashah, and Migdal Gad, and Dilan, and HaMitzpeh, and Yoktheel, Lachish, and Botzkath, and Eglon, and Kabon, and Lachmas, and Kithlish. Regarding "and Gederoth, Beth Dagon," the Metzudat David comments that these are two cities: one called Gederoth and the other Beth Dagon.
The Cities of the Philistines and the Great Sea
אַשְׁדּוֹד בְּנוֹתֶיהָ וַחֲצֵרֶיהָ עַזָּה בְּנוֹתֶיהָ וַחֲצֵרֶיהָ עַד־נַחַל מִצְרָיִם וְהַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל וּגְבוּל׃ - Ashdod, its towns and its villages, Gaza, its towns and its villages, until the Wadi of Egypt, and the Great Sea, and its border.
Before this came: Libnah, and Ether, and Ashan, and Yiphtach, and Ashnah, and Netziv, and Keilah, and Achziv, and Mareshah; nine cities with their villages; Ekron, with its towns and its villages, from Ekron westward, all that lay near Ashdod, with their villages. Wherever "its villages" is mentioned, the meaning is the courtyards and open lands around it, and "its towns" are the small villages surrounding it. We already explained once that what is written "let the daughters of Judah rejoice" does not refer to the daughters of Judah, but to the Levitical cities within the cities of Judah, which are called the daughters of Judah. The Wadi of Egypt was in the south of Judah, and the Great Sea is to the west of the Land of Israel; and "and its border" - the Metzudat David explains that even the border of the sea, the islands in the sea, were also part of the inheritance of Judah.
The Cities of the Hill Country
וְחֻמְטָה וְקִרְיַת אַרְבַּע הִיא חֶבְרוֹן וְצִיעֹר עָרִים תֵּשַׁע וְחַצְרֵיהֶן׃ - And Chumtah, and Kiryath Arba, which is Hebron, and Tzior; nine cities with their villages.
These preceded: and in the hill country, Shamir, and Yattir, and Sochoh, and Dannah, and Kiryath Sannah, which is Devir, and Anav, and Eshtemoh, and Anim, and Goshen, and Cholon, and Giloh - eleven cities with their villages; Arav, and Rumah, and Eshan, and Yanum, and Beth Tappuach, and Aphekah.
מָעוֹן כַּרְמֶל וָזִיף וְיוּטָּה׃ - Maon, Carmel, and Ziph, and Yuttah.
Take note: there is a Yuttah in the Land of Israel too, not only in the United States. And this is not our fault, this is how we received the names from the Canaanites. Incidentally, many of the names of settlements in our times were determined out of a desire to align them with history and archaeology. Kiryath Yearim, for example, its founders called it Telz-Stone, but since according to archaeology they claim that Kiryath Yearim was located there, the name Kiryath Yearim was fixed. And so too Gederah and the like. They will not make a Beer Sheva for you in the north, since it is known that it was in the south, and they have archaeological indicators that are not necessarily precise, but as far as the general region goes the matter is correct. Thus they try to call the cities by their original names, and many places indeed correspond.
הַקַּיִן גִּבְעָה וְתִמְנָה עָרִים עֶשֶׂר וְחַצְרֵיהֶן׃ - Hakkain, Givah, and Timnah: ten cities and their villages.
And further: Yizreel, Yokdeam, and Zanoach; Chalchul, Beit Tzur, and Gedor, and Maarat, Beit Anot, and Eltekon: six cities and their villages; Kiryat Baal (which is Kiryat Yearim) and Rabbah: two cities and their villages; in the wilderness, Beit HaArava, Middin, and Sechacha, and Nivshan, Ir HaMelach, and Ein Gedi: six cities and their villages.
The Yevusi in Yerushalayim: the oath of Avraham
וְאֶת־הַיְבוּסִי יוֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם לֹא־יָכְלוּ בְנֵי־יְהוּדָה לְהוֹרִישָׁם וַיֵּשֶׁב הַיְבוּסִי אֶת־בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה בִּירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃ - And as for the Yevusi, the inhabitants of Yerushalayim, the children of Yehudah could not drive them out, and the Yevusi dwelt with the children of Yehudah in Yerushalayim until this day.
The Radak notes: the written form is "yuchlu" while the read form is "yachlu." The read form is past tense: they could not drive them out; and the written form is future tense: they will not be able to, for indeed they could not drive them out until the days of David, and it was only David who ultimately drove them out.
And Chazal say: they were able to, but they were not permitted, because of the oath that Avraham swore to Avimelech. The Radak stresses that this Yevusi was not the Yevusi from among the seven nations, and one should not become confused. Cham had four sons: Kush, Mitzrayim, Put, and Kenaan, and Kenaan fathered Tzidon his firstborn, and Chet, and the Yevusi, and the Emori, and the Girgashi. The Yevusi thus appears as the son of Kenaan son of Cham, and it is not he who is spoken of here. Rather, says the Radak, there was one man whose name was Yevus, and he was of the Pelishtim. And the Pelishtim too are of the seed of Cham, but not by way of Kenaan, rather by way of Mitzrayim, as it is written: And Mitzrayim fathered the Ludim, and the Anamim, and the Lehavim, and the Naftuchim, and the Patrusim, and the Kasluchim, from whom the Pelishtim came forth, and the Kaftorim.
And why did we suffer so greatly from the Pelishtim throughout history, and even from the modern "Palestinians"? Because they were mamzerim. Rashi writes on "and the Patrusim, and the Kasluchim, from whom the Pelishtim came forth": it is impossible to know from which of them, from the Patrusim or from the Kasluchim, for there was a mingling there and they would exchange their wives, and from them came forth the Pelishtim: mamzerim. And it is not for nothing that we call a sharp person a "mamzer." It is brought in the holy books that a mamzer comes from a great lust, for "stolen waters are sweet," and consequently this produces sharp children. Therefore when one wishes to say of someone that he is exceptionally sharp, one says "he is a mamzer."
It emerges, then, that the matter of the Pelishtim is unrelated to the Yevusi son of Kenaan. The Yevusi here was of the seed of Avimelech and among the Pelishtim, and the place was called Yevus after him, and the members of the family who dwelt in Yerushalayim were called Yevusi after their descent from Yevus. So too Aravnah the Yevusi, who was king of the place, is traced to the Pelishtim and not to the Yevusi son of Kenaan. And the fortress of that place was Tzion, which is the central city in Yerushalayim.
And why did they not conquer it? We already asked this regarding Devir, for they conquered all the other places. Here too there was a special reason: the oath. Avraham swore to Avimelech "that you will not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my grandson," and here there was an oath to the son and to the grandson, and Chazal say that until the time of David it was still not permitted to conquer the place. The limitation was not technical but on account of the oath.
And how did they lock this matter over them? By means of copper images that the Pelishtim made there, the blind and the lame, upon which the matter of the oath was inscribed. And why specifically blind and lame? Because they wished to mock our forefathers through them: one in the image of Yitzchak who was blind, and one in the image of Yaakov who was lame, for "and he limped upon his thigh."
And we have already spoken about this matter, to see what the difference is between a great person and a small person. We speak of Yitzchak, the holy of holies; and they see a blind man. We speak of Yaakov Avinu, the third leg of the chariot, the chosen of the forefathers, the holy of holies; and they see a lame man. The coarse person looks with a coarse gaze. They once told Rav Shach that it is said Shimon Peres met the Chafetz Chaim in his childhood and saw him. Rav Shach said: not true, he saw no Chafetz Chaim at all. They said to him: but they testify that he saw him. He said to them: he saw merely an old man. What grasp does he have of the Chafetz Chaim, what does he understand? It is like the Pelishtim understanding Yitzchak and Yaakov. For had he truly seen the Chafetz Chaim, would Shimon Peres have come out of him?
In any case, they were coarse, but this prevented us from the conquest, and this is what is said: "You shall not come here, except you remove the blind and the lame." Further on the Malbim will detail the entire matter of the conquest and how it was carried out, and what was special about those blind and lame ones, which were made with a special technique that prevented the conquest beyond the matter of the oath. And in the end David HaMelech removed the blind and the lame, conquered that tower, and purchased the city of the Yevusi with a written sale of gold for an eternal possession, as it is written that David weighed out to Aravnah shekels of gold for the place.
According to the plain meaning, the Radak says: the fortress was strong and they did not have the power to conquer it, and what we said until now is the derashah of Chazal. Yet even according to the plain meaning this was arranged by Hashem, so that King David would be the one to conquer it and the place would be called by his name, since he was the head of the kingdom of Israel. This is why we call it "the City of David," for David conquered it and took possession. It is known that in their times every place that was conquered was called by the name of its conqueror, as we find with Yoav, who called David and said to him: come and conquer it yourself, so that the city would be called by your name. Here too, from Heaven they were not allowed to conquer it at that moment, so that the conqueror would be David and the place would be called by his name.
As for what is stated "until this day," the Radak says that Yehoshua wrote it in his book, and the meaning is that until Yehoshua's time they had not conquered it; and indeed, afterward when David came and reigned the place was conquered. The Malbim, in Sefer Shoftim chapter 1 (verse 8, and it is a misprint that it appears there as verse 9), explains the contradiction between the verse here and the verse there and resolves the matter correctly, and we will learn this with Hashem's help in Sefer Shoftim.
Summary:
Chapter 15 describes the portion of the tribe of Yehudah: its borders on the south, the east, the north and the west, and the list of its cities by districts - the Negev, the Shefelah, the mountain and the wilderness. From the Malbim we learned the precise wordings of the border (it went out, it turned around, it was drawn, its limits), the secret of "by the mouth of Hashem" which indicates an ancient command from Moshe, and the strip that extended from Yehudah's portion into Binyamin's portion, upon which an altar is built. At the center of the chapter stand Kalev and Otniel: the progression of the "stream that dries up" teaches that Devir was not conquered because its inner essence - "Kiryat Sefer," its share in the Torah - had been forgotten, and only after Otniel restored the halachot through his pilpul was it possible to capture it; and Achsah's request teaches the virtue of one who supports Torah scholars. The chapter concludes with the Yevusi in Yerushalayim, which was not conquered because of Avraham's oath to Avimelech, until King David came, removed the blind and the lame, purchased the place for full payment, and Yerushalayim was called the City of David.