After the stunning victories east of the Jordan, the tribes of Reuven and Gad settle there, in accordance with the terms set by Moshe. With the beginning of settlement, the forty years’ wandering in the desert are coming to a close.

Part of the tribe of Menasheh also conquers territory nearby, and settles there. The Machir division of the tribe receives the Gil’ad region. One such conquest is as far east as the Bashan:
And Novach had gone and captured Kenat and all its villages, and he called it (LA) Novach, by his name (Bamidbar 32:42).

Kenat was at the foot of Mount E-Druze. From Divrei HaYamim (I 2:23) however, we learn that the nations of Geshur and Aram wrested Kenat from Machir. The change of name from Kenat to Novach, it seems, was not permanent.

There is a peculiarity in the spelling of LA, as noted by Rashi and others. Normally, we would expect a dot in the letter HEH, yet there is none. Why?

If the letter HEH is at the end of a word, it is usually silent. However, if we are meant to pronounce it – a phenomenon called mappik HEH, “produce the HEH” – then it is marked with a dot. In this case, a short breath is heard at the end of the word. In our verse, however, the HEH is silent.

Haamek Davar (R. Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, 1817-1893) suggests a rather daring solution. The Torah means to say, “And he called them (LAHEN)” – namely, Kenat and the surrounding villages – Novach, like the name of a district. But, since the name refers principally to the city, the Torah wrote LA in the singular. By leaving out the mappik HEH, the Torah suggests that not only the city, but also the villages are included. This is because the letter NUN at the beginning of Novach serves both as the last letter of LAHEN and the first letter of the name! Haamek Davar insists that this phenomenon, wherein one letter serves two different words, occurs frequently in Scripture.

Rashi searches for a midrashic explanation for the absence of mappik heh:
“I have seen in the [book] Yesod of R. Moshe HaDarshan (11th Century), that this is because this name was not maintained for it [this change of name did not last]. Therefore the HEH is silent, such that its exegetical meaning is like LO (no).”

But Rashi raises a question based on two other occurrences of LA spelled without mappik HEH. One is when Rut expresses her gratitude for Boaz’s kindness:
And she said, “…You have comforted me and spoken to your maidservant’s heart, although I am not even like one of your maidservants.” And Boaz said to her (LA) at the time of eating, “Approach here and eat of the meal…(Rut 2:13-14).”

The other example is when the prophet Zechariah sees a vision of two winged women bearing an ephah measure suspended between heaven and earth. He asks the angel where they are taking the measure:
And he said to me, “To build it (LA) a house in the land of Shin’ar, and it shall be established, and set there upon its setting” (Zechariah 5:11).
Rashi challenges R. Moshe HaDarshan:
“I wonder what would he explain for the two words that are identical to it…”

But R. Moshe HaDarshan’s source is the Midrash (Rut Rabbah 5:5)! Ramban is surprised that Rashi, whom he calls “the master, the well-stocked storehouse [a description of Rabbi Akiva in Gittin 67a] in Torah, laws and aggadot,” did not notice this Midrash.

This Midrash says that in each case LA is explained as LO, “no”:
And Boaz said to her (LA) – Boaz said, “No (LO) – Heaven forbid! You are not of the maidservants, but of the Matriarchs [an allusion to the blessing that Rut (4:11) will be like Rachel and like Leah].”

As for Zechariah, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 24a) says that the two women in the vision symbolize flattery and arrogance. Arrogance remained in Shin’ar/Babylon, even affecting the way the Sages of Babylon learn Torah. Flattery, however, did not remain because, as the Midrash says, “Falsehood has no stability.” Thus, “To build it (LA) a house in the land of Shin’ar” means “To build it [the flattery] no house in Babylon” (see also Kiddushin 49b, Tosafot, Livnot).

Chizkuni (R. Chizkiya ben Manoach, mid 13th Century) explains, “To build it (LA) a house” differently, also based on Sanhedrin 24a: He wished to build but did not build. This refers to the poverty of Torah in Babylon and neighboring Elam, where they had the merit to learn Torah, but not to teach it.

Siftei Chachamim (R. Shabbetai Bass, 1641-1718), unlike Ramban, insists that Rashi knew the Midrash, but rather felt that, to be consistent, each LA should have been interpreted as LO: LA Boaz -- LO BOAZ: not Boaz, but rather an intermediary, spoke to Rut (which, in fact, is the way Maharam, R. Meir ben Baruch of Rothenburg, c. 1215-1293, explains it). Instead, R. Moshe HaDarshan interprets it as if Boaz said “No.” Similarly, LA BAYIT -- LO BAYIT: not a house, but a tent. Instead, R. Moshe HaDarshan interprets it as if it said, “No house whatsoever.”

Siftei Chachamim concludes with his own interpretation. Only Novach himself and others called the city Novach, but his children did not, out of respect for their father. This is similar to Yoreh Deah 240:2: If someone’s name is the same as his parent’s, he may not call that person by name, but must alter the name.

R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) derives a moral lesson from Novach’s unfulfilled intention to immortalize himself:
“Does this perhaps express a slight reprehension of such procedure to found a memorial in bricks and stone to immortalize oneself, an earthly immortalization which the true Jew should seek and find solely through the great deeds of spiritual and moral faithfulness to duty and through the whole content of noble life?”

Quite a lot to learn from one dot!