Commentaire sur Les Nombres 31:8

חמשת מלכי מדין THE FIVE KINGS OF MIDIAN — But can I not see that Scripture has enumerated five; why, then, does it feel compelled to say that there were five? But it is to tell you that even as they had all been alike in the plot, so, too, they were treated alike in the punishment that befell them (cf. Rashi on Genesis 25:22, where, as here, the total of the names mentioned is stated) (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5). — Balaam had gone there to receive the reward for the 24,000 whom he had made to fall of Israel through his counsel and now also he left Midian to meet Israel and gave them bad advice: viz., he said to them, “If, when you were 600,000 you were unable to overcome them, now you come to war against them with 12,000?” They gave him his full reward and did not stint it (they slew him) (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5).

ואת מלכי..חמשת מלכי מדין, "and the kings of Midian….-the five kings of Midian." The reason that the Torah spelled out their number (i.e. 5), something we had already counted ourselves, was to tell us that they were all killed next to one another so that all the soldiers could count the bodies of these five kings whom they had slain. The reason why the Torah repeats that they were kings may have been to tell us that they were killed by soldiers who knew full well that these five men were kings. They were not the victims of random killings.

ואת צור, “and Tzur;” the father of Cozbi חמשת מלכי מדין, “the five kings of Midian.” The reason the Torah wrote the word חמשת מלכי מדין as if mentioning their names did not already tell us that there five such kings, is to tell us that all five were of one mind concerning their hostility against Israel. The construct form חמשת reflected this. The reason that Bileam was there was that he had detoured on his way home, (a long way off from Aram) in order to collect his reward for having been the cause of the 24,000 men of Shimon killed by the plague, Bileam had mocked the Israelites saying: “if you could not go to war against Midian when there were 600,000 of you, how can you now expect to defeat them with only 12,000 men?” He had tried to undermine their self-confidence (compare Tanchuma Mattot 3). [The challenge by Bileam reported here is not found in Tanchuma. Ed.]

To receive the reward for the twenty-four thousand. Rashi is answering the question: Why was Bil’am with the Midianites? Surely he was from Aram Naharayim. [And the reason why] he went to the Midianites to ask for his reward rather than going to Balak was because they were the agents of the sin. Alternatively, he may have been there at that time because he passed through on his way to Balak to request his reward. (Nachalas Yaakov) The answer [why he went there and not to Balak] is that when he heard Yisroel came to antagonize the Midianites, he went to help them and also to take his reward. Thus, there was a dual cause; for it is possible that he would not have gone to Balak for the reward alone, and consequently this is why he did not go. (Gur Aryeh) answers that by law, the Moavites were not liable to pay him, because they could claim that when they had agreed to give him a large reward they did so out of fear. We see this concept in the last chapter of Bava Kamma (116a) concerning one who was fleeing prison and offered someone a dinar to take him across [a river]. There he can only claim his [normal] fee because the fugitive made his offer only out of fear. Here too Bil’am would receive only a nominal reward, a small amount for the trouble of his speaking and for the advice he had given them. However, the Midianites were not afraid and they promised him a large reward, thus they were obliged to pay his full reward as they had agreed. [Alternatively Bil’am’s advice] was agreeable to Midian but not to Moav, for Moav acted out of fear, while Midian acted out of hatred, as Rashi says that they abandoned their daughters [to promiscuity] (25:15). (Kitzur Mizrochi) answers that in accordance with the Midrash that Tzur was Balak, consequently he was one of the five kings of Midian, and therefore Bil’am went there to request from him his reward.

V. 8. על חלליהם, sie waren nicht die ersten im Kampfe. — ואת בלעם. Es scheint, dass er, nachdem. er den Erfolg seines Rates erfahren, aus seiner Heimat wieder nach Moab und Midjan gekommen und die Seele der von den Midjaniten noch fortgesetzten Verführungskünste war. Nach Sanhedrin 106 a wäre er gekommen, um sich einen Lohn für seinen erfolgreichen Rat zu erbitten.

על חלליהם, “with their other slain comrades;” the word על here means: “with,” as for instance in Leviticus 25,31. (Compare what our author explains on that verse). Compare also על עולות התמיד in Numbers 28,15, as well as Exodus 35,20 האנשים על הנשים, “the men with the women,” and numerous other examples.

בחרב [BALAAM ALSO … THEY SLEW] WITH THE SWORD — He came against Israel exchanging his metier (the sword) for their metier (the mouth), for they conquer only through their mouth — through prayer and petition, and he came and availed himself of their craft to curse them with his mouth. They, therefore, also came against him and exchanged their craft for the craft of the heathen peoples who come with the sword, as it is said, (Genesis 27:40) “And by thy sword shalt thou live” (cf. Rashi on Numbers 22:23).

And offered them evil advice. For if not so, how could they have killed him given that he was not a Midianite? One cannot say [they killed Bil’am] because he caused them to sin, for they did not know this until they returned from Midian, as it states (v. 16), “They were the very same ones who, on Bil’am’s advice, were involved with Bnei Yisroel.” Rather, it was because he offered them evil advice [i.e.] to rebel against Hashem’s command.

הרגו בחרב, they killed by the sword. The Torah had to write the word הרגו, "they killed" once more when describing the manner of Bileam's death though we gleaned his information already from the context (end of verse 7). The reason is best understood when we read Sifri where it is stated that Bileam had gone there to collect his fee for the diabolical advice he had given Balak with such stunning results. According to Sifri, at that moment Bileam was on the way to advise the Israelites not to make war against Midian saying to them that if they had been unable to overcome Midian when the were able to field 600.000 fighting men, now that they numbered fewer they would certainly not be able to do so. According to the Sifri that the Israelites killed Bileam as a response to his effrontery, he was killed before the battle against the Midianites had taken place. This was all part of G'd's clever plot. He wanted to demonstrate that Bileam did not die because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that He, G'd, had arranged things so that the Israelites would have an excuse to single him out for killing. Had the Torah not repeated the word הרגו unnecessarily, we would not have been able to deduce this from the text. The emphasis on the word בחרב, "by the sword," is to show that all his sorcery did not help Bileam and instead of their "killing" only his alter ego they killed his body.

ואת בלעם, “and Bileam;” after Bileam had returned from Moav to Aram Naharayim, his home base, he traveled toMidian in order to collect a fee from the elders of Midian who had been in the first delegation Balak had sent to him to ask him to curse the Israelites. When he heard that a great plague had befallen the Israelites, he wanted to cash in on this, claiming that he had been the instrument that brought this about, by having suggested that the Moabite women seduce their males into promiscuity by sleeping with their women. (Ibn Ezra) An alternate interpretation explaining Bileam’s sudden presence amongst the Midianites: when he had explained to the Moabites that the reason that he was unable to curse these people effectively was because they had been so loyal to their G-d and His Torah, (Numbers 23,21) the Moabites took the hint and succeeded to lead them into sin. Having succeeded in this, they sent Bileam another invitation stressing that now he could curse them effectively. He followed their advice and was killed as a result.

His reward in full… One can explain משלם literally as meaning “in full.” Consequently, ולא קפחוהו ["without stinting"] would mean that they did not deduct anything for him, rather they paid him in full for the evil that he had done to them. Alternatively one could explain it as משלם ["from their own'] with a segol under the [letter] shin and a kammatz under the [letter] lamed, meaning, “From that which belongs to the nations,” i.e. the sword was given to them. Since he took up the craft of Yisroel [so they confronted him…] as Rashi explains below.