שמע שמת אהרן ונסתלקו. וא"ת מנליה לרש"י, דלמא כפשוטו כדכתיב אחריו כי בא ישראל וגו'. וי"ל דק"ל לרש"י ל"ל וישמע, דלא הל"ל אלא ויבא ישראל דרך האתרים ויבא הכנעני וילחם וגו', כמו ויבא עמלק וילחם בישראל, וכמו ויצא לקראת ישראל המדברה ויבא יהצה וילחם בישראל, וכן גבי עוג ויצא לקראת ישראל וגומר למלחמה אדרעי, אלא שמע שמת אהרן ונסתלקו ענני כבוד. ועי"ל דהוכחתו מדכתיב בפ' ואלה מסעי, וישמע הכנעני וגו' אחר מיתת אהרן והתם ע"כ לא שמע אלא שמת אהרן ונסתלקה השכינה מישראל, והתם פירש"י כאן למדך כו' ל' מכאן משמע שפי' דראייתו משם, ושם אפרש בס"ד. והרא"ם פי' כדכתיב ויראו כל העדה וגו' ואמר ר' אבהו קרי ויראו בצירי תחת היו"ד וכדריש לקיש דאמר האי כי, נתינת טעם לדבר שלפניו הוא, נתגלו העדה לפי שגוע אהרן. ונראה דמשום זה מהפך רש"י ופי' כי גוע אחר כל בית ישראל כדי להסמיך לוישמע הכנעני. נלי"ט: He heard that Aharon died and [the clouds of glory] departed. You might ask: What is Rashi’s source for this? Perhaps [the explanation of the verse] is like its plain understanding, that it was because “Yisroel had come…” as the verse continues. The answer is that Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “He heard”? It should have merely said “Yisroel came by the route of the spies and the Cannanite King of Arad came and attacked…” As the Torah writes (Shemos 17:8) “Amalek came and attacked Yisroel” and (Bamidbar 21:23) “[They] went out against Yisroel to the wilderness; he came to Yohatz and attacked Yisroel.” Similarly it says regarding Og (ibid. v. 33), “He came out against Yisroel, [he with all his people] to wage war at Edre’i.” Rather, it was because they heard that Aharon died and the Clouds of Glory departed. Furthermore one can answer that Rashi’s proof is from Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 33:40) where it is written, “The Canaanites heard…after Aharon’s death.” There it is clear that it was only because they had heard that Aharon had died and that the Divine Presence had departed from Yisroel. Rashi explains on that verse, “From here you learn…” The words, “From here” imply that he is explaining that his proof is from there, as I will explain there. Re’m explains: It is written above וַיִּרְאוּ כל העדה ["The entire community saw…"] (20:29) and Rabbi Abahu says (Rosh Hashanah 3a): Read this as וַיֵרְאוּ ["and they feared"] with a tzerei under the yud in accordance with Reish Lakish who says that here the word כי [translated in 20:29 as "that" but sometimes meaning "because"] comes to explain the matter that precedes it. [Consequently it means that they were fearful] since the community had become vulnerable because of Aharon’s death. It appears that this was why Rashi reversed the order of the verse and explained (20:29) “that [Aharon] had died” after “the entire community of Yisroel” in order to juxtapose it to the comment, “And the Canaanite heard.” R. Yaakov Triosh.
זה עמלק. ומפרש אל תקשי א"כ סתרי קראי אהדדי, דכתיב וישמע הכנעני ואחר כך כתיב יושב הנגב היינו עמלק, ל"פ שינה כו': This was Amalek. Rashi explains this so that you should not pose the difficulty that the verse is contradictory, for it is written, “The Canaanite [king] heard” and afterwards it is written “who lived in the south” which refers to Amalek. [To resolve the difficulty] he explains, “They changed…”
התייר הגדול. פירוש והוא הארון, כלומר כיון שראו שנסתלקו ענני כבוד ולא היה להם כ"א ארון הקודש נוסע לפניהם, מ"ה בא להלחם מה שלא עשה קודם לכן. הרא"ם: והוצרך לטעם של ד"א כי לטעם הראשון קשה למה כתיב דרך האתרים וכי המרגלים כבשו אותו דרך, והלא דרך כבושה היא לכל עוברים ושבים, לכן פירש ד"א וכו' וכמו שפי' הרא"ם כי בסבת שלא הלך לפניהם אלא הארון ונסתלקו ענני הכבוד באו להלחם. ולטעם של ד"א קשה למה כתיב האתרים ל' רבים, כיון דלא קאי אלא על הארון הקודש, ל"פ גם טעם ראשון: The great pathfinder. This refers to the Ark, meaning that once they saw that the Clouds of Glory had departed and [the Israelites] only had the Holy Ark traveling before them, they came to attack, something that they had not done previously. Re’m. The other interpretation was necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why is it written, “The route of the spies.” Did the spies establish that route? Surely it had been established for anyone to pass through. Therefore Rashi brought the other interpretation. Accordingly, Rashi brings the other interpretation and as Re’m explains, that it was because only the Ark traveled before them, but the Clouds of Glory had departed that [the Amalekites] came to attack. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why the Torah writes האתרים in the plural form, since it was referring only to the Holy Ark [which is singular]. Therefore Rashi also brings the first interpretation.
שפחה אחת. הוצרכו לפרש כן משום דס"ל אין ישראל מנוצחים אלא בעת קלקולם לפני הש"י, וכאן לא מצאו שום קלקול, לכן אמרו שהשבי ששבו פה אינו אלא השבי ששבו ישראל מהם. ואין לומר מנליה אחת דלמא שתים, וי"ל דמל' שבי משמע שאינה אלא אחת. ואם תאמר מנלי' לרש"י דשפחה היתה. וי"ל דמל' שבי משמע שפחה כדכתיב בפ' בא, מבכור פרעה היושב על כסאו עד בכור השפחה וכו' כך כתיב בהתראה, ובסוף כשלקה כתיב עד בכור השבי, אלא צריך לפרש דשבי היינו בכור השפחה אף שבי דכתיב הכא מיירי בשפחה, דאל"כ וישב ממנו אנשים או נשים או טף מיבעי ליה: One maidservant. Rashi had to explain so because the Rabbis state that Yisroel can only be defeated at a time when they act corruptly before Hashem. But here we do not find any corrupt behavior. Therefore he says that the captive who was taken here was merely the captive whom Yisroel captured from them. We need not ask how Rashi knew that there was only one, when perhaps there were two. For one can answer that the term שבי ["captive"] implies that there was only one. You might also ask how Rashi knew that the captive was a maidservant. The answer is that the term שבי implies a maidservant. For in Parshas Bo concerning the warning [before the tenth plague] it is written, “From the firstborn of Pharoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the maidservant…” (Shemos 11:5). Whereas later, when the plague struck, it is written “Until the firstborn of the שבי [captive]” (Shemos 12:29). Thus one must explain that שבי there refers to the firstborn of the maidservant and therefore the word שבי written here also refers to a maidservant. For if not so, Scripture should have clarified [whether] he took men, women or children from them.