They are numbered 14 (v. 37), and again 16 (v. 41); and therefore, taken together, all [are] 30. But in that former number, the names placed [in the text] seem to require [that] not 14, but 15 rather, be numbered. R. Isaiah and Rashi answer [that] “Aenam” [Enaim] is to be taken out of the number of the cities, since it is not a city, but a spring near Taphna. But in that way, [it is] not [counted] among
(col. 1161)
the Judaic borders [it] ought to have been numbered, but among the Josephine [Joseph’s], as will be clear from the following ch. 16. Radak, therefore, answers otherwise — [as do] Lyranus, and with him Abulensis: [that] two names are here recounted which signify one and the same city, “Gedera” and “Gederothaim” — just as “Asor” is also called “Esron,” and “Dabir,” “Cariath-Sepher” or “Cariath-senna.” But since two names are so distinctly noted, like the rest, why should they not — like the others — be taken for single places? When [there] are two names of the same place, the text is wont to note this very thing, as in “Asor” (v. 25), and “Debir” (vv. 15 & 49), [and] “Hebron” (vv. 13 & 34). [We] must therefore stand by the response of the foregoing question — [that] some more famous “village” or township was named before, together with the 14 cities. But if thou shouldst ask, why two little subtotals of these cities in the plain were made? — Abulensis answers (in this place, and q. 10) [that there] was some difference of region between them.