ארץ רפאים תחשב אף הוא IT TOO IS COUNTED AS REPHAIM
1 COUNTRY: Just like the Rephaim territory that was promised to Abraham in the covenant between the pieces – for it says there
(Genesis 15), “[(vs. 18) To your offspring I give this land ... of] (vs. 20) the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim” – so also [this territory that the Ammonites conquered] was considered like Rephaim territory. Still they [the original Rephaim natives] were defeated by them [by the Ammonites]. How much more so will you [the Israelites] be able to conquer them [the Rephaim].
2
תחשב IT IS CONSIDERED: [Ammonite territory is considered to be Rephaim territory,] but [it is not called Rephaim territory.] The only land that is called Rephaim territory is (3:10) “Og’s kingdom in Bashan,” concerning which the text says below (3:13), “it is called Rephaim country.”3 In other words, that [territory, Og’s kingdom in Bashan,] is the “Rephaim” that was described [in the covenant] between the pieces. Accordingly Israel will capture that territory4 [and not those other territories that are considered to be Rephaim territory].5
1. Rashbam never defines what the word Rephaim means. It seems from the context (and from his comment to 3:11) that he understands the Rephaim to be a people who would be particularly difficult to vanquish, probably because they are some form of “aboriginal giants” (NJPCS to Genesis 14:6). See also Deuteronomy 2:11 and Rashi’s comment there. See further discussion in note 52.
2. Rashbam provides two different reasons – one here and one in his next comment – why the text includes this gloss that Ammonite territory “is considered Rephaim country.” See note 52 for an explanation of the two reasons.
3. This distinction between land that is Rephaim territory and land that is considered Rephaim territory is found also in R. Joseph Bekhor Shor here. He writes: “People think that they are Rephaim, but they are not.” So also Hizq.
4. In this comment and in the previous comment, Rashbam provides two reasons for the inclusion of the incidental information here that Ammonite territory is considered to be Rephaim territory. (Cf. von Rad here: “All these learned notes ... bear witness to Israel’s astonishing interest in history and in individual historical movements, even in those which do not in any way touch directly its immediate surroundings.” And see the question of the Talmud [Hul. 60b] about the incidental information in vs. 23: מאי נפקא לן מינה – what do we learn from this?)
Rashbam’s first explanation is his own, and fits well with his comments above to vss. 5 and 19. Vss. 20-21 tell us that the Ammonites were miraculously able to conquer Rephaim territory – i.e., territory inhabited by aboriginal giants. If God, due to his covenant with Abraham, performs such amazing miracles for the sake of the descendants of Abraham’s nephew, how much more so will He perform miracles for the sake of Abraham’s direct descendants. See also Nahmanides ad vss. 10-11 who writes that the text is emphasizing the miraculous nature of the military accomplishments of the Moabites and Ammonites. And see similarly NJPSC (quoted at the end of note 40 above).
The second explanation is similar to that of Rashi. (See Rashi ad 2:10 and 3:13, and ad Hul. 60b, s.v. ליתו וליפקו.) The Israelites, according to Rashi’s formulation, have to be warned not to attack the Ammonites. They might think that they should attack the Ammonites, since Ammonite territory is considered Rephaim territory, and God had promised Rephaim territory to Abraham. So, Rashi and Rashbam explain, the text clarifies (here and in chapter 3) that only Og’s territory is the real Rephaim territory mentioned in Genesis 15. (See Nahmanides’ criticism of this explanation in his commentary to vss 10-11).
I would argue, based particularly on the wording of his comments to vss. 5 and 23, that even this second explanation of Rashbam should not be understood as identical to Rashi. For Rashi, the text is explaining why it was forbidden for the Israelites to attack various territories. In other words, the incidental information provided in these antiquarian historical notes has a halakhic purpose: to explain what territories the Israelites may and may not attack. For Rashbam, though, the information is provided for rhetorical purposes: to make the Israelites stop worrying about their lack of strength so far. The Israelites might be saying to themselves: “Should we not have captured that Rephaim territory? Did we perhaps refrain from attacking them because of weakness? Should we be worrying?” So Moses reassures the Israelites that that so-called Rephaim territory is not really Rephaim territory and thus it was never on the Israelites’ conquest agenda. See also note 54.
There is also a telling difference between Rashbam’s approach to these verses and that of his younger Christian contemporary, Andrew of St. Victor. Andrew (p. 198) writes that all these descriptions of miracles performed by God for the Moabites and Ammonites are meant to keep the Israelites from becoming cocky (ne gloriarentur filii Israel); God performs miracles for all peoples. Andrew says that our verses should be understood as similar to Amos 9:7, “Are you not just like Ethiopians to Me, O Israelites?” Rashbam, on the other hand, says that our verses are meant to make the Israelites feel self-confident. God performed miracles on behalf of Ammonites and Moabites; how much more so can the Israelites be confident that God will perform such miracles on behalf of His chosen ones.
5. At this point in the manuscript there appears (as Rosin reports) another interpolated comment from the copyist. I have translated it below in the Appendix, beginning on p. 213.