Midrash sur Les Nombres 21:26

(Numb. 22:2:) “Now Balak ben Zippor saw.” What is the meaning of “Now he saw?” He saw retribution which would come against Israel in the future.³Numb. R. 20:2. And he hated them more than all their enemies, as all of the [others] came with wars and subjugation which they could withstand. But this one was like a man who could extract a word from his mouth to uproot an entire nation. (Numb. 22:2:) “Now Balak [ben Zippor] saw.” It would have been better for the wicked if they had been blind, for their eyes bring a curse to the world. With reference to the generation of the flood, [it is written] (in Gen. 6:2), “The sons of God saw [how beautiful the human daughters were and took whomever they chose as their wives].” [It is also written] (in Gen. 9:22), “Then Ham, the father of Canaan, saw [the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside].” It is also written (in Gen. 12:15), “So Pharaoh's courtiers saw her (i.e., Abram's wife Sarah) [and praised her to Pharaoh, and the woman was taken to Pharaoh's house].” It is also written (in Gen. 34:2), “Then Shechem ben Hamor saw [Dinah].” So also [here] (in Numb. 22:2), “Now Balak [ben Zippor] saw.” The matter is comparable to someone who appointed guards to guard from an invader; and he had confidence in them, because they were warriors. When the invader came over and killed them, he trembled with fear for himself. It was the same also with Balak. When he saw what happened with Sihon and Og to whom he had been sending payment to guard him, he was afraid for himself. And in addition to that, he had seen the miracles at the Wadis of Arnon.⁴According to Numb. 21:26-31, Sihon defeated the King of Moab and captured his territory as far at the Arnon. See above and Numb. R. 19:25, for a description of the miracles. See also below and Numb. R. 20:7, according to which Sihon’s victory resulted from a curse by Balaam. (Numb. 22:3:) “Wayyagor mo'av.”⁵A traditional translation of these words would be NOW MOAB WAS IN GREAT DREAD, or something similar. What is the meaning of “Wayyagor (rt.: ygr)?”⁶Numb. R. 20:3. When Israel appeared to the Ammonites, they appeared clothed for peace. But when they appeared to the Moabites they appeared armed [for battle]. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 2:19), “When you draw near the frontier of the Children of Ammon, do not trouble them.” It is written [to imply not to trouble them] with all kinds of trouble; (ibid., cont.) “and do not provoke (rt.: grh) them,” with any kind of provocation. In regard to Moab, however, He said (in Deut. 2:9), “Do not trouble Moab, and do not provoke (rt.: grh) them with war.” Do not make war with them, but whatever you can seize apart from [war], seize. For that reason they appeared armed, and [the Moabites] gathered themselves (rt.: 'gr) to their cities, as stated (in Numb. 22:3), “Now Moab yagor (i.e., gathered).” Wayyagor (rt.: ygr, here understood a form of 'gr) can only be a word for a gathering, just as it says (in Prov. 10:5), “A prudent child gathers (rt.: 'gr) in the summer.” Another interpretation (of Numb. 22:3), “wayyagor”: [It is] a word for fear, in that they were afraid, as they saw the whole land in the hands of Israel. As Sihon had come and taken [part of] the land of Moab, as stated (Numb. 21:26), “and he fought against the earlier king of Moab….” And Og had taken all of the land of the Children of Ammon, as stated (Deuteronomy 3:11), “Since only Og was left from the remnant of the Rephaim….” [And] Israel came and took it from both of them; theft that has no iniquity. And [so the Moabites] saw their land in the hand of Israel and they would say, “Did the Holy One, blessed be He, not say (in Deuteronomy 2:9), ‘As I will not give you from its land as an inheritance’; and behold our land is in front of them (already in their possession).” Therefore they were afraid. (Numb. 22:3, cont.:) “And Moab had a horror (rt.: qwts) [of the Children of Israel],” because they saw themselves as a [mere] thorn (qwts) over against them.

(Exodus 22:3) "If found will be found in his hand": in his possession. Even though there is no proof for this, there is support for it, viz. (Numbers 21:26) "and he took all his land from his hand", and (Genesis 24:10) "Then the servant took … and all the good of his master in his hand," — whence we find "in his hand" in all places to connote "in his possession."

"in his hand": "in his hand" always connotes "his domain." And though there is no proof for this, it is intimated in (Numbers 21:26) "And he took all his land from his hand", and (Genesis 24:10) "And the servant took ten camels … and all the good of his master in his hand," — whence we infer that "in his hand" always connotes "his domain." "he shall be put to death": by strangulation. You say by strangulation, but perhaps by one of the (other) deaths mentioned in the Torah? Would you say that? This is a principle in the Torah: Any unqualified death mentioned in the Torah — You are not permitted to incline it to severity, but to lenity. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Not because it is of lesser severity, but because all "death" unqualified is strangulation. Rebbi says: There is "death" at the hands of heaven and "death" at the hands of man. Just as the first leaves no outward sign, so, the second. From here they ruled: The mitzvah of strangulation, etc.