Chasidut zu Dewarim 2:9
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהוָ֜ה אֵלַ֗י אֶל־תָּ֙צַר֙ אֶת־מוֹאָ֔ב וְאַל־תִּתְגָּ֥ר בָּ֖ם מִלְחָמָ֑ה כִּ֠י לֹֽא־אֶתֵּ֨ן לְךָ֤ מֵֽאַרְצוֹ֙ יְרֻשָּׁ֔ה כִּ֣י לִבְנֵי־ל֔וֹט נָתַ֥תִּי אֶת־עָ֖ר יְרֻשָּֽׁה׃
Und der HERR sprach zu mir: 'Sei nicht in Feindschaft mit Moab und kämpfe auch nicht mit ihnen im Kampf. denn ich werde dir sein Land nicht zum Besitz geben; weil ich den Kindern Lot Ar zum Besitz gegeben habe.—
Kedushat Levi
Having explained all this, the opening line of our portion, i.e. Balak’s fear of the Israelites, which had baffled many in light of G’d having forbidden the Israelites to harass the Moabites, much less attack them, becomes more understandable.
It is true that Nachmanides had addressed this problem and concluded that Balak’s fear was that the Moabites, on account of their love or their being related to the founder of the Jewish people, would voluntarily allow themselves to be conquered, as a result of which the prohibition to attack and conquer their territory would have become null and void, and the Israelites would conquer that land, just as they had done with the land owned by Sichon and Og, annex it. Nonetheless, this is not a very plausible explanation as there were no nations nearby other than the Canaanites, all of whom Israel had been commanded to wipe out completely, so that the Moabites would not gain by becoming their captives. [Since the author had introduced an even less likely scenario than the example I mentioned, examples that reflect Balak’s supposed fear of the Israelites through devious means trying to elevate the Moabites spiritually, level by level, I have omitted it. Ed.]
When commenting on Deut. 34,10, ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה, “and there never arose another prophet of the stature of Moses in Israel,” our sages in Sifrey Vezot Habrachah, draw our attention to the significance of the word בישראל, “in Israel,” in that verse, and suggest that it means that within other nations there did arise at least one prophet of a stature equal or superior to that of Moses. The statement is mind-boggling, and they therefore add that any comparison of Moses and Bileam is limited to certain aspects of their respective prophetic knowledge and power.
It is true that Nachmanides had addressed this problem and concluded that Balak’s fear was that the Moabites, on account of their love or their being related to the founder of the Jewish people, would voluntarily allow themselves to be conquered, as a result of which the prohibition to attack and conquer their territory would have become null and void, and the Israelites would conquer that land, just as they had done with the land owned by Sichon and Og, annex it. Nonetheless, this is not a very plausible explanation as there were no nations nearby other than the Canaanites, all of whom Israel had been commanded to wipe out completely, so that the Moabites would not gain by becoming their captives. [Since the author had introduced an even less likely scenario than the example I mentioned, examples that reflect Balak’s supposed fear of the Israelites through devious means trying to elevate the Moabites spiritually, level by level, I have omitted it. Ed.]
When commenting on Deut. 34,10, ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה, “and there never arose another prophet of the stature of Moses in Israel,” our sages in Sifrey Vezot Habrachah, draw our attention to the significance of the word בישראל, “in Israel,” in that verse, and suggest that it means that within other nations there did arise at least one prophet of a stature equal or superior to that of Moses. The statement is mind-boggling, and they therefore add that any comparison of Moses and Bileam is limited to certain aspects of their respective prophetic knowledge and power.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
When we keep the above in mind the verse (Numbers, 21,27) תבנה ותכונן עיר סיחן, “let it be built (Cheshbon) as the city of Sichon, and let it be firmly established, becomes clear.” The city in question is one that Sichon had captured from Moab. It had therefore become permitted for the Israelites to be taken as if it were part of the Emorite (Canaanite) nation, whereas the Torah had warned the Israelites not to infringe on Moabite territory. (Deut. 2,9). The Talmud in Gittin 38, states, that Sichon, by conquering part of the territories of Ammon and Moab, “cleansed” i.e. made permissible, the subsequent conquest of these lands by the Israelites. Incidentally, this statement also shows that Jewish law recognizes capture of lands of one nation by another to be considered as legal after the event. If reference is made by the Torah to this event which might have occurred hundreds of years prior to the war between Israel and Sichon, it is only in order to prove the legality of Israel taking over these cities and rebuilding them. The Torah emphasizes that the city was legally Sichon’s by describing it as עיר סיחון, “Sichon’s city.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy