Commento su Numeri 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.