Comentario sobre Números 22:4

אל זקני מדין AND MOAB SAID] TO THE ELDERS OF MIDIAN But did not these (Moab and Midian) always hate one another, just as is stated, (Genesis 36:35) “who had smitten Midian in the country of Moab”, from which it is evident that Midian had come against Moab in war? But out of fear of Israel they now made peace between themselves (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 3; cf. Sanhedrin 105a). And what induced Moab to take counsel of Midian? When they saw that Israel was victorious in a supernatural manner they said: the leader of these people grew up in Midian; let us ask them what is his chief characteristic. They replied to them; “His power lies only in his mouth (in prayer)”. Whereupon they said: “Then we must come against them with a man whose power lies in his mouth” (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 3).

THE ELDERS OF MIDIAN. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “it is possible that the five kings of Midian¹⁰Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian (further, 31:8). It is thus with the five “kings” of Midian [who are here in Verse 4 called “elders”] that Moab took counsel with, but not with the elders of Midian mentioned in Verse 7, who were lords not “kings.” Ramban will refute this interpretation of Ibn Ezra. were the elders.” But if so, [the expression] and the elders of Moab and ‘the elders of Midian’ departed [further on in Verse 7] does not refer to the [same] “elders of Midian” mentioned at the beginning [here in Verse 4: And Moab said unto ‘the elders of Midian’] since kings would not have gone to him [Balaam on such a mission] and [“the elders” mentioned in Verse 7 must perforce have been] princes, as is [expressly] written,¹¹Further, Verse 8: and ‘the princes’ of Moab abode with Balaam. [but not “kings”]. Furthermore, according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹²Tanchuma, Balak 7. who said [that the reason why Moab turned for assistance to Midian, their traditional enemy, was because they said]: “The leader of these people [the Israelites] grew up in Midian; [let us ask them about his characteristics]” — it would have been fitting for the Moabites to send [the delegation] to the elders of Midian, not to the kings or the people, for it was the elders who would know Moses’ nature.
It appears to me that originally there were kings in Midian, but Sihon the king of the Amorites had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto the Arnon.¹³Above, 21:26. He [also] fought against the children of Ammon and took [part] of their land, just as the Ammonite king said to Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when he came up out of Egypt,¹⁴Judges 11:13. and Jephthah replied to him that they had taken it from Sihon.¹⁵Ibid., Verses 15-23. In [the Book of] Joshua it is [also] written, And their border was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer;¹⁶Joshua 13:25. and Sihon furthermore fought against the kings of Midian and conquered their land, and made them his servants bringing tribute¹⁷II Samuel 8:6. and took the crowns off their heads, depriving them of the splendor of royalty, and he allowed them to remain as judges of the land of Midian under his authority. Therefore [although as Ibn Ezra says, they were indeed once kings of Midian], they are called ‘the elders’ of Midian, similar in expression to [she shall go up] to the gate unto ‘the elders’¹⁸Deuteronomy 25:7. [which means “the judges”]. A proof for this [that the kings of Midian were appointed judges — “elders” — by Sihon] is the verse in [the Book of] Joshua: and all the kingdoms of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses smote with the chiefs of Midian, Eri, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, ‘the princes of Sihon,’ that dwelt in the land,¹⁹Joshua 13:21. This verse clearly shows that the former chiefs of Midian had now become the princes of Sihon. thus indicating that [the land of Midian arid its chiefs were] under the suzerainty of Sihon. The meaning then, of [the phrase] and the kings of Midian²⁰Further, 31:8: and they slew the kings of Midian. is “the former kings of Midian,” just as it says: the chiefs of Midian … the princes of Sihon.¹⁹Joshua 13:21. This verse clearly shows that the former chiefs of Midian had now become the princes of Sihon. Similarly it says [of Zur, one of the five people mentioned as a king of Midian],¹⁰Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian (further, 31:8). It is thus with the five “kings” of Midian [who are here in Verse 4 called “elders”] that Moab took counsel with, but not with the elders of Midian mentioned in Verse 7, who were lords not “kings.” Ramban will refute this interpretation of Ibn Ezra. he was the head of the people of ‘a fathers’ house in Midian,’²¹Ibid., 25:15. but he was no longer king. Or it may be that the reason [for the use of the phrase] the kings of Midian²⁰Further, 31:8: and they slew the kings of Midian. is that they had regained their royal status at that time.
But I do not know a reason for that which Scripture says, and Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time,⁸Verse 4 here. when it could have said [concisely] at the beginning, And Balak the son of Zippor, “king of Moab,” saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.²²Verse 2. Perhaps Balak was a mightly man of valor, very famous for the acts of his power and of his might,²³Esther 12:2. and therefore Scripture mentioned that although Moab had a powerful king at that time, who was courageous among the mighty,²⁴Amos 2:16. they nonetheless were afraid and were overcome with dread because of the children of Israel.⁴Verse 3 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. That is why Jephthah said [to the king of Ammon], And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab?,²⁵Judges 11:25. for one does not frighten a king except by [mentioning the defeat of another] king who was greatly feared.
It is possible that since Moab [at that time] did not have a king, the people stood in great fear because of the children of Israel,⁴Verse 3 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. therefore they did two things: they sent to the elders of Midian saying, ‘Now will this people lick up etc.,’⁴Verse 3 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. and they appointed this man [Balak] as their king on the advice of Midian, and afterwards they all sent [a deputation] to Balaam at the command of the king. This is the meaning of [the expression] at that time [and Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab ‘at that time’],⁸Verse 4 here. namely [at the time that] they took counsel about the problem of Israel, and sent the messengers to Balaam. The meaning, then, of And Balak saw,²²Verse 2. is that he [Balak] who was one of the princes of Moab, and a mighty man of valor, took action in this matter and said to Moab, “Come, let us deal wisely²⁶Exodus 1:10. with [this] people,” and they thereupon appointed him king on the advice of Midian. In the Midrash Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah I have seen [the following text, corroborating the above interpretation]:²⁷Bamidbar Rabbah 20:4. “And Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time.⁸Verse 4 here. But was he not originally [merely] ‘a prince,’ as it is said, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba [the princes of Sihon]?²⁸Joshua 13:21. And since, as the Midrash explains, Zur is a synonym for Balak, we see that Balak was merely “a prince” and not “a king”! But [we must say] that when Sihon was killed, at that time they appointed him king over them, the exigencies of the moment causing his [appointment as king, although he was not of the royal family].”

עתה, now that the Israelites had conquered both Sichon and Og and their respective countries.

ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבותינו, "the multitude will lick up all that is around us, etc." Perhaps the Moabites did not want to reveal to the elders of Midian the extent of their fear of the Israelites and that is why they described the presence of the Israelites in that part of the world as an ecological disaster. They spoke of "our environment" (pl) to include the Midianites as potential victims of such a disaster. The words ובלק בן צפור are what the Torah reports not part of what the Moabites told the Midianites. It is even possible that these words were also spoken by the Moabite messengers to the elders of the Midianites; they wanted to emphasise to the Midianites that inasmuch as they had appointed one of the Midianite princes as their king, the Midianites had a special interest in cooperating with them. Should anything happen to them, this would reflect negatively on Midian because of their king's origin. The Torah emphasises that Balak was king בעת ההיא, "at that time," i.e. not earlier and not subsequently. Once Bileam told the Moabites that they had nothing to fear from the Israelites in the foreseeable future, they dismissed Balak from his position and sent him home. The best proof of that is the fact that when the Torah enumerates the princes who were slain in the punitive expedition the Israelites launched after Pinchas' famous deed (Numbers 31,8), Tzur was amongst the princes listed as having been killed.

ילחכו, all the existing crops and any other available foodstuffs.

זקני מדין, “the elders of Midian.” Quoting Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides writes that it is quite possible that these elders were the five kings of the Midianites, who because of heir advanced ages, are here described as זקנים, elders. If that is so, then the emissaries described in verse six, who included זקני מדין cannot have been the same זקנים mentioned in verse four. Surely, the five kings of Midian did not accompany the far less illustrious emissaries that Balak had sent to Bileam, emissaries, who by their own admission, were not of the highest levels of Moabite diplomats. According to our sages, who claim that the present head of state of the Moabites was of Midianite descent, it seems quite natural that Balak should send emissaries to his homeland in the first instance to investigate if he can forge an anti Israelite alliance with them. He would send the emissaries to the elders, not to the kings, as the elders were the ones who, due to their experience, were able to furnish good advice. It seems likely, that originally the Midianites had been ruled over by kings, and the same Sichon who had made war against Moav and confiscated a major part of their land, had also conducted a similar campaign against Midian, had defeated them and deposed them, and had instead appointed regional heads with far less political power than that wielded by kings. These are now referred to as זקנים, a title similar to that we read about in Judges 20,16 אל השערה meaning: “to the elders, who congregate near the gate of the town.” When we read in Numbers 31,8 ואת מלכי מדין, “and the kings of Midian,” the reference is to the men who had at one time been kings, but had been demoted by Sichon. The description of these people as ראש בית אב במדין is a clear indication that these people occupied subordinate positions, subordinate to the powers of kings.

ויאמר מואב אל זקני מדין, “Moav said to the elders of Midian, etc.” The sudden consultation between two peoples whom we know as enemies of one another (Genesis 36,35) is remarkable. Fear of the Israelites drove these two people into each other’s arms. When two dogs which were fighting one another perceive themselves as being threatened by a wolf, they suddenly start to cooperate. Here too the survival instinct drove Midian and Moav to bury their hatchets. Why did the Moabites choose the Midianites to consult with? [There were other nations in the region. Ed.]. They had realized that Moses’ success was due to supernatural forces. Having learned that the leader of the Israelites, Moses, had spent many decades in Midian they wanted to find out more about his personality and abilities. The Midianites explained to their Moabite neighbors that Moses’ power was not of a military nature but lay only in his mouth. Thereupon the Moabites (Balak) decided to fight Moses by means of someone (Bileam) whose power was also in his mouth (Tanchuma Balak 3). They were under the impression that Moses was simply a superior astrologer.

But were they not ancient [enemies] … as it is said “who attacked…” For if it were not so, let it write הכה את מדין ["who attacked Midian"] which would imply once, however המכה את מדין implies that they were continually attacking them.

V. 4. ויאמר מואב אל זקני מדין und diese Gesinnung hatte sich bereits betätigt: Moab, das Volk mit Umgehung seines Königs, hatte zu den Ältesten des midjanitischen Volkes, also ebenfalls nicht an dessen Könige, deren sie fünf hatten (Bamidbar 31, 8), geschickt und hatte ihnen seine Befürchtungen mitgeteilt. Da Sichon und Og, die gewaltigsten Könige der Zeit, Israel gegenüber völlig ohnmächtig sich erwiesen hatten, hatte die Königsmacht als Verteidigerin der Selbständigkeit ihres Volkes einen ernsten Stoß in dem Vertrauen der Völker erhalten, und von Volk zu Volk, mit Umgehung der Könige, ergingen die Mitteilungen und die Einladungen zum gemeinschaftlichen Rate und Handeln. Die Botschaft aber lautete: לחך .עתה ילחכו וגו׳ heißt: lecken, auflecken, Wasser oder Staub mit der Zunge auflecken: ילחכו עפר כנחש (Micha 7, 17), המים אשר בתעלה לחכה bildlich vom Feuer (Kön. I. 18, 38). Nun fasst in der Tat der Ochse das Gras zuerst mit der Zunge, die es umschlingt und abrupft. Man kann also ganz eigentlich sagen: der Ochse leckt das Gras auf und לחך ist hier der treffendste Ausdruck. Der Sinn der Botschaft aber war: so natürlich und mühelos wie der Ochse mit der bloßen Zunge das Gras sich zur Nahrung nimmt, so natürlich und mühelos werden wir alle diesem קהל zur Beute werden. Sie nennen Israel absichtlich nicht עם und nicht גוי, es erscheint ihnen ja noch nicht als ein staatlich gebautes Volk, es fehlt ihm ja noch der Boden, nach gewöhnlicher Anschauung die unerlässliche Vorbedingung jedes volkstümlichen Wesens. Gleichwohl war es ihnen קהל, ein durch ein ihnen unbekanntes Moment vereinigtes Gemeinwesen. את כל סביבתנו, nicht nur uns, denen es jetzt gegenüber lagert, und die wir zunächst bedroht sind, sondern auch alle unsere Nachbargebiete. Warum sie gerade nach Midjan diese Botschaft gesandt, die ihnen doch ferner lagen, und nicht nach Edom, jenen nächsten Nachbarn, dürfte zweifelhaft sein. Vielleicht eben weil Midjan Ägypten und insbesondere der Wüste, diesem langjährigen Aufenthalte Israels, näher lag und sie daher bei Midjan eine nähere Bekanntschaft mit dem ihnen rätselhaften Volke voraussetzen und um so eher entsprechenden Rat erwarten konnten. Nach מ׳׳ר, weil sie von Mosche Vergangenheit in Midjan wussten und daher dort von seiner Eigentümlichkeit Näheres erfahren zu können hofften.

ועתה ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבותינו, “and now this horde of people and livestock will lick up every blade of grass in our vicinity.” They were not worried about their lives, apparently knowing that G–d had forbidden the Israelites to make war upon them, but they faced economic ruin nonetheless. (They must have known about what G–d had said in Deuteronomy 2,9 about not harassing Moav.)

To the elders of Midian. Targum Yonason states: This teaches us that the agreement between the five princes of Midian with Moav was that each of them would take a turn ruling as king over Moav for a set amount of time. When his time came to rule, he and his household would come to Moav until the next one's turn came. From the verse we see that while Balak was in Midian and his time had not yet arrived, he saw the calamity that was about to befall Moav but he was unable to take action in Moav. He could only cause that Moav would speak to the elders of Midian. However, when his time came to rule over Moav, he was free to do whatever he pleased.

ויאמר מואב אל זקני מדין, “Moav said to the elders of Midian, etc.;” They were their neighbours and they were contractually allied to them. We know this from Genesis 36,35: where Midian is referred to as having made common cause with Moav. Combined, they had defeated Haddad ben B’dad.

כלחך השור AS THE OX LICKETH — they used this comparison because whatever piece of ground the ox licks has no blessing left in it (cf. Shabbat 140b, 141a; Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 3).

ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבותינו, they wanted their leaders to enlarge the area under their control in order to make their borders more secure.

ובלק בן צפור מלך למואב בעת ההיא, “and Balak son of Tzippor was the king of Moav at this time.” Nachmanides writes that actually the paragraph should have commenced with referring to Balak as the King of Moav as soon as we are told of his name, describing his reaction to what had happened to Sichon and Og and their peoples. Nachmanides speculates that possibly, Balak had been known as a great warrior in his own right, and the Torah wishes to tell us that although the Moabites had a king who was such a warrior he was so afraid of the Israelites. This would also explain part of Yiphtach’s letter to the King of Moav some 300 years later in Judges 11,25 in which he asked that king sarcastically: “do you consider yourself superior to Balak? Did he start a quarrel with Israel or go to war with them?” He was afraid that he could not frighten the King of the Moabites except with a King of great renown, and Yiphtach himself was not even a crowned head of the Jewish people, so that the Moabites saw this as a sign of weakness of the Israelites It is possible that at this time Moav had not been ruled over by a king at all, and that they were terrified by the approaching Israelites. In such a desperate situation they did two things. 1) They appointed a king over themselves, 2) they sent to Midian trying to create a united front of these two peoples against the Israelites. Having come to an agreement with the Midianites, they sent a joint delegation to Bileam to ask him to curse the Jewish people. This would be the reason why the Torah spoke of בעת ההיא, “at that time,” as we would have known without these words that the Torah described current events, not history, in this paragraph. The meaning of the opening lines of our portion then would be: “Balak, a renowned warrior, one of the high ranking dignitaries in Moav, realised that the Israelites had succeeded in frightening his countrymen, and he used this opportunity to persuade them to appoint him as their king. One of the first actions he took was to forge an alliance with Midian, etc.” The Midianites had advised the people of Moav to appoint Balak as their king. According to the Midrash, the Moabites had had a king all along. He had held the rank of “prince,” but after the defeat of Sichon he had been promoted to the position of “King,” and the authority that this entailed. Balak’s promotion was not of a hereditary nature but was dictated by pressing external circumstances.

Why did Moav see fit to accept advice from Midian. Meaning that though they had made peace between themselves due to their fear [of Yisroel], nonetheless the peace was only so that they would no longer be enemies. However, why did they see fit to accept advice? Rashi answers… [Why did Moav see fit to accept advice from Midian.] Since the verse associated the request for advice with Moav, and it is not written, “The elders of Moav and the elders of Midian said,” one sees that Moav accepted advice from Midian. Consequently Rashi questions “why they saw fit…” [Initially] Rashi had no difficulty with the verse, since one could say that Midian was not afraid of Bnei Yisroel, and only Moav was afraid. However now that he explains that because of their fear of Yisroel they made peace between themselves, we see that both of them were afraid. Thus there is the difficulty as to why Moav saw fit to accept advice from Midian, and why Midian did not accept advice from Moav in order to save themselves. Rashi answers, “When they saw…,” meaning that the Midianites knew [the nature of] the leader of Yisroel, meaning Moshe, because he had been raised in Midian. Therefore, Moav accepted advice from Midian.

וכלק בן צפור מלך למואב בעת ההיא Moabs König, König von Moab heißt entschieden: מלך מואב, nie aber מלך למואב .מלך למואב bedeutet daher die Königsstellung, die jemand für Moab hat oder haben soll, und בלק בן צפור מלך למואב וגו׳ heißt: Balak hatte den Beruf und die Stellung als König für Moab, in dem Zusammenhange mit dem Vorangehenden ובלק וגו׳: und Balak, Sohn Zippors, war doch König für Moab in dieser Zeit! An ihn hätte das moabitische Volk sich zuerst mit seinen Befürchtungen wenden sollen, für eine solche Zeit war ja vor allem der König König! Indem aber die Angst des Volkes ihn völlig als König ignorierte und er in solcher Zeit nichts als Balak, Sohn Zippors war, wie er V. 2 genannt wird, und nicht als Moabs König, מלך מואב, sich sah, darin erkannte er die ganze Gefährlichkeit der Lage und das motivierte sein ganzes folgendes Verfahren. Israels bloße Gegenwart und die wunderbaren Siege, die ihm vorangingen, hatten bereits einen solchen Zauber über sein Volk geübt, dass es alles Vertrauen in gewöhnliche Völker- und Herrschermacht verloren hatte und von seines Königs Heereskunst nichts gegen Israel erwartete. Dieser Zauber oder die Vorstellung von ihm in den Gemütern des Volkes — gleichviel, ob Balak selbst den Glauben an Zaubermacht teilte oder, wie es scheint (V. 7), selbst eingeweiht war in die Täuschungsgeheimnisse der Kunst, — musste erst durch eine höhere oder gleiche geheimnisvolle Macht gebrochen sein, ehe er es wagen konnte, ja ehe es ihm auch nur gelingen würde, sein Volk zum Kampfe gegen Israel hinauszuführen.

כלחוך השור, “just like oxen lick up;” oxen are known not to have teeth in the upper parts of their gums, so that instead of chewing the grass they rub it in their mouths, unlike horses or donkeys. As a result also the roots of the grass are destroyed and will not grow again.

עתה ילחכו, “now they will lick up, etc.” after the Israelites had defeated Sichon and surrounding areas, they were afraid it would be their turn next.

בעת ההוא [BALAK WAS KING OF MOAB] AT THAT TIME — at that time: he was not really entitled to the kingdom; he was actually one of the Midianite princes, but when Sihon died they (the Moabites) appointed him as king over them to meet the needs of the time (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 4).

ובלק בן צפור, who was known as a hero and a military expert.

כלחון השור, “like the ox licks up, etc.;” the ox licks the grass with its tongue, which acts like a comb as it has no upper dentures, like all the beasts that are pure and allowed to be slaughtered by the Israelites.

מלך למואב בעת ההיא, in spite of these factors which should have encouraged the Moabites they did not have the heart to fight the Israelites as is clear from Judges 11,25. As to the remarks by Joshua that Balak son of Tzippor arose and fought Israel (Joshua 24,9), Joshua said this in reference to Balak hiring Bileam to curse the people of Israel as he himself pointed out in the same verse.

Whatever an ox [laps up] is no longer marked by blessing. Because it uproots everything by its roots, similarly with them, they completely uproot everything as it is written, “Leaving no survivors” (Bamidbar 21:35). For if not so, it should have said, “As the animal laps up.”

One of the chieftains. Meaning: “Officers.” The text of Re’m reads: “He was one of the chieftains of Sichon” see there. However one does not have to emend our texts because of this, since Scripture mentions him in connection with both of them, as it is written (Yehoshua 13:21) “the leaders of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Tzor, Chor and Reva, chieftains of Sichon.” [Midrash Rabbah (20:24) identifies Tzor as Balak.]