Комментарий к Бамидбар 25:15

ושם האשה המכה וגו׳ AND THE NAME OF THE [MIDIANITISH] WOMAN WHO WAS SMITTEN etc. — This is stated to show you the hatred the Midianites bore to Israel — that they abandoned even a princess to prostitution in order to make Israel sin (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2).

המדינית, The Midianite, etc. The reason the Torah describes Kosbi with the letter ה for a definitive article is proof that she must have been the only Midianite woman who sacrificed her self-respect in order to seduce an Israelite. This may also account for the fact that in 25,6 the word המדינית is written with the letter ה at the beginning although we had not heard of that woman previously. In fact, if the Midianite women had participated in mass seduction there can be no doubt that G'd would have commanded that they be killed during the punitive campaign against Midian. The Torah only reported the people as debasing themselves by sleeping with the Moabite women (25,1). There was a good reason why the Midianite women did not do what the Moabite women did. It was not that they were morally superior, but the Moabites had been given an assurance that the Israelites would not touch them. No such assurance had been given to the people of Midian. The reason that Kosbi was different was that she was Balak's daughter and as such had a personal interest to do what she could to help her father achieve the downfall of the Israelites.

כזבי בת צור, “Cozbi daughter of Tzur.” She was the daughter of a king, seeing that Tzur was one of the five Midianite kings killed by the Israelites in the punitive expedition (Numbers 31,8). The Midianites harbored so much hatred against the Israelites that one of their kings demeaned his own daughter to the status of a whore in order to lure the Israelites into sin (Tanchuma Pinchas 2).

To inform you of the hatred of the Midianites, who abandoned a princess to promiscuous behavior. A question is widely asked: How does Rashi know that it was because of their hatred? Perhaps they intended to cause them to sin in order that the Divine Presence would depart from Yisroel, [merely] because they feared Yisroel. The answer is that once the elders of Midian departed, thinking that Bil’am was of no use (Rashi to 22:7), why would they have acted in this manner on his advice? Rather, [we see that] they acted out of hatred. You might ask: Why did Rashi not answer, as he did above that it was, “To proclaim the merit of Pinchas…”? For here he could have also said that even though she was a princess, “He did not refrain…” The answer is that when Rashi explained, “He did not refrain…” it meant that he was not afraid that he would be punished for killing him since he was a leader, as Rashi explained.

V. 15. ושם האשה וגו׳, auch die Rücksicht auf die etwaige Feindschaft, die seine Tat für die Nation herbeiziehen konnte, durfte Pinchas nicht zurückhalten, wo es die Rettung der Lebensseele seiner Nation, deren Treue gegen Gott und sein Gesetz galt. — ראש אמות בית אב, hier ist בית אב einer der Stämme, in welchen die midjanitische Nation sich verzweigte. Er war Oberhaupt eines dieser Stämme, zugleich aber ראש אמות, ein bei den vereinigten Stämmen einflussreiches Haupt.

ושם האשה המוכה, “and the name of the woman who had been slain, etc,” the reason that the Torah bothered to name the woman in question was only in order to tell us that she was of the elite of the women in Midian, and although Pinchas was aware of this, and the possible political implication of killing her, this did not stop him from acting zealously on behalf of Hashem, as he remembered that G–d said to Avraham, after he had killed four prominent kings in order to free his nephew Lot, that he should not be afraid of the relatives of those kings seeking revenge. (Genesis 15,1).

ראש אמות [HE WAS] THE HEAD OF THE PEOPLE — He was one of the five kings of Midian, Evi and Rekem and Zur etc. (31:8). He, however, was the most important of all of them, as it is said, “the head of the people”, but because he made himself despicable by abandoning his daughter to prostitution it enumerates him not first but only third (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2).

I have found support for my theory in Tanchuma Mattot 4 where it is claimed that Tzur, one of the kings slain in the punitive expedition against Midian was Balak; he had been demoted because he had allowed his daughter to cheapen herself by sleeping with an Israelite. According to our theory that Kosbi was Balak's daughter this all makes sense seeing that there had been only a single Midianite woman who had been described as a seductress. It is more than likely that the one Midianite woman who had reason enough to do this was a daughter of Balak. She followed Bileam's wicked advice. It is possible that Kosbi was the very first woman to follow Bileam's advice and that the Moabite women were not willing to demean themselves until they had seen the king's daughter do this. It is quite true that I have written that Balak was demoted by the Moabites seeing that they had nothing to fear from the Israelites, Bileam having told them that any confrontation between them and Israel would occur far into the future. Nonetheless, Balak immediately followed Bileam's advice before he returned home to Midian. When the Moabites saw this they followed suit and slept with the Israelites. Were it not for this fact it is hard to understand why king Tzur's daughter should have been so different from all the other Midianite women.

בית אב — Midian had five fathers’ houses: Ephah and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida and Eldoah (Genesis 25:4) — and this man was king of one of them.

One of the five kings of Midian. That is to say, that when it is written, “The national leader” this implies that Tzur was the head of [all of] them. However, afterwards it is written, “Of a paternal house” which implies that he was only the head of a paternal house. Rashi answers that he was certainly only the head of one of the five paternal houses of Midian, however he was the most prominent of all of them and this is why it is written, “The national leader.”

I have found a Midrash in Yalkut Shimoni on Mattot in which the words הן הנה in Numbers 31,16 are translated as "these are the well known ones, etc." This means that Moses and Eleazar knew the women who had been taken captive so well that they were able to pinpoint which one of them had seduced which Israelite. If so, there must have been numerous Midianite women who participated in the seduction of the Israelites. We would then have to say that whereas all the Moabite women cheapened themselves, only the ordinary Midianite women participated in this wholesale seduction; the aristocrats amongst the Midianite women did not demean themselves in this fashion. Seeing that Balak was the only one who allowed his daughter to demean herself by sleeping with an Israelite, they demoted Balak as a punishment. If we follow this approach the letter ה at the beginning of the word המדינית means that she was the only aristocratic Midianite lady who had demeaned herself. According to the aforesaid there is proof for what we wrote at the end of Parshat Balak that the Israelites did not know these women as there were many Midianite women amongst the Moabites and they did not dress according to their local custom but tried to misrepresent themselves by wearing clothes belonging to the other nation. This was the reason the Torah in 25,1 mentioned the Israelites as fraternising only with the Moabites. They did not realise that Midianite women were masquerading as Moabites. Had they known this, the soldiers staging the punitive expedition would not have taken the women captive but would have killed them at once.

But because he debased himself by abandoning his daughter, he is counted third. There are those who raise the difficulty: Why was he counted third rather than second? It would have been sufficiently degrading not to have counted him first, given that he was the national leader. The answer is that if he was counted second, one might have thought that it was not to degrade him, but it was because he was younger than all of them. Accordingly, even though he was the most prominent of all of them, he was still not counted first. However, now that he was counted third, one must say that it was to degrade him.

במדין הוא, her father was a head in Midian. This description is somewhat difficult. If the Torah meant to tell us that Tzur was the head of the whole nation of Midian it should have written ראש בית אב למדין instead of במדין. The prefix ב only tells us something about location not about stature and position. Why did the Torah have to tell us that Tzur lived in Midian? Where else would he live? Perhaps the intention is to counteract an impression created when the Torah described Balak as a king, whereas Tzur was described as head of a nation within Midian. The Torah wanted to tell us that Balak did not remain king of Moav but had already been expelled and had returned to his homeland by the time the Israelites were commanded to harass the Midianites. Moreover, the words במדין הוא may be a subtle hint that at the time that his daughter slept with Zimri, Balak had already returned to his home in Midian. Compare my commentary on 24,25.