וְעָשָׂ֨ה כִרְצוֹנ֜וֹ הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ וְיִתְרוֹמֵ֤ם וְיִתְגַּדֵּל֙ עַל־כָּל־אֵ֔ל וְעַל֙ אֵ֣ל אֵלִ֔ים יְדַבֵּ֖ר נִפְלָא֑וֹת וְהִצְלִ֙יחַ֙ עַד־כָּ֣לָה זַ֔עַם כִּ֥י נֶחֱרָצָ֖ה נֶעֱשָֽׂתָה׃
At ang hari ay gagawa ayon sa kanyang kalooban; at magmamataas siya at magpapakadakila higit sa bawat diyos, at laban sa Diyos ng mga diyos ay magsasalita siya ng mga kagila-gilalas na bagay; at magtatagumpay siya hanggang sa matapos ang poot, kapag naisagawa na ang itinakdang pasya.
Ramban
WHO IS LIKE UNTO THEE, O ETERNAL, ‘BA’EILIM’. “I.e., among the mighty ones, just as in the verses: And ‘eilei’ (the mighty) of the land he took away;178Ezekiel 17:13. ‘eyaluthi’ (O Thou my strength), hasten to help me.”179Psalms 22:20. Thus the language of Rashi.
Now it is true that the word eilim is an expression of power and strength, but Who is like unto Thee ‘ba’eilim’ is a reference to the angels who are called eilim, the usage of the word being similar to that in the verse, This is ‘E-ili’ (my G-d), and I will glorify Him,180Verse 2. and the Holy One, blessed be He, is called E-il Elyon (G-d the Most High)181Genesis 14:18. above all powers. Similarly, And he shall speak strange things against the G-d of ‘eilim’182Daniel 11:36. is like the expression, He is G-d of gods.183Deuteronomy 10:17. Also, Ascribe unto the Eternal, O ye ‘b’nei eilim’ (sons of might)184Psalms 29:1. is like the expression b’nei ha’elohim,185Genesis 6:2. since they are at times called eilim or b’nei eilim, and sometimes also ha’elohim or b’nei elohim. Thus: For the Eternal is greater than all ‘ha’elohim;’186Further, 18:11. And the ‘b’nei ha’elohim’ came to present themselves before the Eternal.187Job 1:6. Some scholars188Reference is to R’dak, who mentions this point clearly in his Sefer Hamichlal, and quotes the verses mentioned here. If b’nei is not in the construct state, b’nei eilim will not mean “sons of the mighty ones,” as it would if the word b’nei were in the construct state. Instaed, it means “the sons who are the mighty ones.” say that the word b’nei is not in the construct state, nor are these expressions: b’nei shileishim,189Genesis 50:23. In the construct state, it would mean “children of the third generation,” i.e., the fourth generation. In the non-construct state, it would mean “children who were the third generation.” ‘anshei’ (men) portrayed upon the wall.190Ezekiel 23:14. The point here is that the word anshei (men) is vocalized with a tzeirei, as is the rule in the construct state. See Vol. I, p. 503. Yet it is not in the construct state. So also the word b’nei, although vocalized with a tzeirei, is not in the construct state. And this is the meaning of Who is like Thee, ‘ne’edar’ (majestic) in holiness? since there is no adir (lofty one) like Him in the celestial holy abode. And so we find in the Mechilta:191Mechilta on the verse here. “Who is like unto Thee among those who serve before Thee in heaven, as it is said, For who in the skies can be compared unto the Eternal, who among the sons of might can be likened unto the Eternal, a G-d to be feared in the great council of the holy ones?”192Psalms 89:7-8.
Now it is true that the word eilim is an expression of power and strength, but Who is like unto Thee ‘ba’eilim’ is a reference to the angels who are called eilim, the usage of the word being similar to that in the verse, This is ‘E-ili’ (my G-d), and I will glorify Him,180Verse 2. and the Holy One, blessed be He, is called E-il Elyon (G-d the Most High)181Genesis 14:18. above all powers. Similarly, And he shall speak strange things against the G-d of ‘eilim’182Daniel 11:36. is like the expression, He is G-d of gods.183Deuteronomy 10:17. Also, Ascribe unto the Eternal, O ye ‘b’nei eilim’ (sons of might)184Psalms 29:1. is like the expression b’nei ha’elohim,185Genesis 6:2. since they are at times called eilim or b’nei eilim, and sometimes also ha’elohim or b’nei elohim. Thus: For the Eternal is greater than all ‘ha’elohim;’186Further, 18:11. And the ‘b’nei ha’elohim’ came to present themselves before the Eternal.187Job 1:6. Some scholars188Reference is to R’dak, who mentions this point clearly in his Sefer Hamichlal, and quotes the verses mentioned here. If b’nei is not in the construct state, b’nei eilim will not mean “sons of the mighty ones,” as it would if the word b’nei were in the construct state. Instaed, it means “the sons who are the mighty ones.” say that the word b’nei is not in the construct state, nor are these expressions: b’nei shileishim,189Genesis 50:23. In the construct state, it would mean “children of the third generation,” i.e., the fourth generation. In the non-construct state, it would mean “children who were the third generation.” ‘anshei’ (men) portrayed upon the wall.190Ezekiel 23:14. The point here is that the word anshei (men) is vocalized with a tzeirei, as is the rule in the construct state. See Vol. I, p. 503. Yet it is not in the construct state. So also the word b’nei, although vocalized with a tzeirei, is not in the construct state. And this is the meaning of Who is like Thee, ‘ne’edar’ (majestic) in holiness? since there is no adir (lofty one) like Him in the celestial holy abode. And so we find in the Mechilta:191Mechilta on the verse here. “Who is like unto Thee among those who serve before Thee in heaven, as it is said, For who in the skies can be compared unto the Eternal, who among the sons of might can be likened unto the Eternal, a G-d to be feared in the great council of the holy ones?”192Psalms 89:7-8.
Rabbeinu Bahya
The next paragraph which describes a situation in the home of someone who has two wives one of whom he loves whereas he harbours hostile feelings towards the other, teaches that the Torah did not easily agree to permitting the אשת יפת תאר to the Jewish soldier, seeing it foresaw that introducing her into the soldier’s household was likely to result in friction in that home. Had it not been the Torah’s wish to help the soldier sublimate his carnal lust for that woman, the Torah would not have done so, seeing the chances that her husband will eventually hate such a woman are statistically quite high. Moreover, if he has a son from her, the chances that the son will become a delinquent (בן סורר ומורה), [even if not in the strictly halachic sense of the word. Ed.] are not insignificant. This is why the paragraph about such a delinquent follows in short order.
We find that the Torah’s psychology was justified when we look at the life of King David (compare Tanchuma Ki Teytze 1). He had taken Maacha, the daughter of Talmai, the King of Geshur as one of his wives (Samuel II 3,3) after he had gone out to war against him. She bore Avshalom for David. Avshalom rebelled against his father and tried to kill him; he slept with David’s concubines. He murdered one of David’s sons, and generally became the focus of political strife in Israel and responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Israelites. The prophet Nathan was told to tell David that G’d would make evil arise against David out of his own house (Samuel II 12,11, see commentary by R' D. Kimchi).
Another paragraph which is appended to the foregoing one because it is a warning, is verse 22 in which the procedure of preserving even the dignity of the body of someone who has been legally executed for a crime committed is discussed. The sequences of our passages in this chapter are reminiscent of Isaiah 24,18 where the prophet tells us that when one has managed to escape one kind of terror, one will find oneself entrapped by a different kind of trap. The sum total of the moral/ethical teaching of these verses is that even marriages which are permitted by the Torah are not necessarily suitable unions. The marriages to prisoners of war are a prime example of such unions.
Even though the women in question have converted to Judaism, this is not considered a complete (ideal) conversion. It is assumed that the woman in question converted out of fear, i.e. physical fear of otherwise being executed. Even when someone volunteers to become a proselyte with no pressure from any causes which we can detect, the sages (Yevamot 47) have instructed the judges performing the conversion to carefully examine the prospective proselyte’s background to determine if he or she is converting for ulterior motives, i.e. not because of genuine religious conviction. Money, position, etc., may all be reasons which attract a Gentile to become Jewish. In the case of males more likely than not they have their eyes on a Jewish girl whom they wish to marry.
Judaism is different from other religions which are soul-snatchers, missionary by definition. The reason is that we are a national religion, not one which wishes to embrace all of mankind. Some of the other religions, Islam in particular, are imbued with the fervor to ram their beliefs down the throats of people whom they perceive to be pagans. [In some editions the author refers to “two” religions, i.e. Christianity also. Ed.]. Sometimes all kinds of enticements, both material and spiritual, are offered to the potential convert in order to get him to embrace a particular new faith. This is what Daniel already prophesied about (Daniel 7,20) “and a mouth speaking haughty words.” Daniel 7,25 also deals with the same phenomenon describing efforts at converting others to one’s belief being made my leaders of religious cults. In Daniel 11,36 Daniel harps on the same subject once more.
Once the prospective convert to Judaism has been checked out and no ulterior motives have been discovered which would make us doubt his sincerity, he is advised of the yoke of Torah legislation and what is implied by joining the Jewish people (Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Bi-ah 13,14). All of this is designed to make the prospective convert reconsider his plans to become Jewish.
During the reign of David prospective converts were rejected as it was suspected that these converts were inspired by fear of the growing power of the Jewish state. In Solomon’s time they were also not accepted as it was suspected that they were motivated by the affluence and security offered by King Solomon’s empire (compare Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Bi-ah 13,14-15).
Despite these rulings, there were many converts during the reign of David and Solomon, and once local courts had conducted such conversions and the converts had undergone ritual immersion the higher courts did not revoke these conversions. Although Solomon who married numerous women of pagan ancestry converted all them of them prior to marrying them, and Shimshon too did not marry until after the lady had been converted, seeing these conversions were due to ulterior motives, scripture continues to describe the women in question as if they had remained Gentiles and sleeping with them was forbidden. The outcome of these “marriages” testifies to the fact that they were flawed from the beginning. The Book of Kings accuses Solomon of building altars for the former deities his various foreign-born wives served, although he personally did nothing of the sort. The fact that he did not interfere with such goings on is placed at his doorstep (compare Kings I chapter 11).
In view of all the above we can understand the statement of our sages in Yevamot 47 that converts are as serious a plague for the Jewish people as is the dreaded skin disease tzoraat. The reason for this attitude is that experience has shown that the majority of converts abandoned their former religion only because of material advantages to be attained by becoming Jewish. Not only that, these converts have a habit of leading natural born Jews astray. Once these people have become legal converts it is practically impossible to isolate them and to ostracize them. The first time such converts led the natural born Jews astray was during the episode of the golden calf, whereas a short time later the same thing occurred in Numbers 11,4 when a group of people described by the Torah as אספסף instigated the craving for meat as a result of which tens of thousands of Israelites died a miserable death. Sifri Behaalotcha 86 attributes all this to these converts. Time and again such fair-weather converts have become the bane of our people.
Just as we learned from the order in which these last few paragraphs have been arranged that one sin brings in its wake another sin, we can learn from another sequence of paragraphs that one commandment meticulously observed will bring in its wake the fulfillment of other commandments.
In 22,6 we read about the commandment to release a mother bird before taking her chicks, followed by the commandment to install a railing on the roof of a new house. Following this the Torah instructs us not to mix certain species of seed, etc., etc. The message is that once we observe one commandment it will be easier to observe other commandments.
We find that the Torah’s psychology was justified when we look at the life of King David (compare Tanchuma Ki Teytze 1). He had taken Maacha, the daughter of Talmai, the King of Geshur as one of his wives (Samuel II 3,3) after he had gone out to war against him. She bore Avshalom for David. Avshalom rebelled against his father and tried to kill him; he slept with David’s concubines. He murdered one of David’s sons, and generally became the focus of political strife in Israel and responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Israelites. The prophet Nathan was told to tell David that G’d would make evil arise against David out of his own house (Samuel II 12,11, see commentary by R' D. Kimchi).
Another paragraph which is appended to the foregoing one because it is a warning, is verse 22 in which the procedure of preserving even the dignity of the body of someone who has been legally executed for a crime committed is discussed. The sequences of our passages in this chapter are reminiscent of Isaiah 24,18 where the prophet tells us that when one has managed to escape one kind of terror, one will find oneself entrapped by a different kind of trap. The sum total of the moral/ethical teaching of these verses is that even marriages which are permitted by the Torah are not necessarily suitable unions. The marriages to prisoners of war are a prime example of such unions.
Even though the women in question have converted to Judaism, this is not considered a complete (ideal) conversion. It is assumed that the woman in question converted out of fear, i.e. physical fear of otherwise being executed. Even when someone volunteers to become a proselyte with no pressure from any causes which we can detect, the sages (Yevamot 47) have instructed the judges performing the conversion to carefully examine the prospective proselyte’s background to determine if he or she is converting for ulterior motives, i.e. not because of genuine religious conviction. Money, position, etc., may all be reasons which attract a Gentile to become Jewish. In the case of males more likely than not they have their eyes on a Jewish girl whom they wish to marry.
Judaism is different from other religions which are soul-snatchers, missionary by definition. The reason is that we are a national religion, not one which wishes to embrace all of mankind. Some of the other religions, Islam in particular, are imbued with the fervor to ram their beliefs down the throats of people whom they perceive to be pagans. [In some editions the author refers to “two” religions, i.e. Christianity also. Ed.]. Sometimes all kinds of enticements, both material and spiritual, are offered to the potential convert in order to get him to embrace a particular new faith. This is what Daniel already prophesied about (Daniel 7,20) “and a mouth speaking haughty words.” Daniel 7,25 also deals with the same phenomenon describing efforts at converting others to one’s belief being made my leaders of religious cults. In Daniel 11,36 Daniel harps on the same subject once more.
Once the prospective convert to Judaism has been checked out and no ulterior motives have been discovered which would make us doubt his sincerity, he is advised of the yoke of Torah legislation and what is implied by joining the Jewish people (Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Bi-ah 13,14). All of this is designed to make the prospective convert reconsider his plans to become Jewish.
During the reign of David prospective converts were rejected as it was suspected that these converts were inspired by fear of the growing power of the Jewish state. In Solomon’s time they were also not accepted as it was suspected that they were motivated by the affluence and security offered by King Solomon’s empire (compare Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Bi-ah 13,14-15).
Despite these rulings, there were many converts during the reign of David and Solomon, and once local courts had conducted such conversions and the converts had undergone ritual immersion the higher courts did not revoke these conversions. Although Solomon who married numerous women of pagan ancestry converted all them of them prior to marrying them, and Shimshon too did not marry until after the lady had been converted, seeing these conversions were due to ulterior motives, scripture continues to describe the women in question as if they had remained Gentiles and sleeping with them was forbidden. The outcome of these “marriages” testifies to the fact that they were flawed from the beginning. The Book of Kings accuses Solomon of building altars for the former deities his various foreign-born wives served, although he personally did nothing of the sort. The fact that he did not interfere with such goings on is placed at his doorstep (compare Kings I chapter 11).
In view of all the above we can understand the statement of our sages in Yevamot 47 that converts are as serious a plague for the Jewish people as is the dreaded skin disease tzoraat. The reason for this attitude is that experience has shown that the majority of converts abandoned their former religion only because of material advantages to be attained by becoming Jewish. Not only that, these converts have a habit of leading natural born Jews astray. Once these people have become legal converts it is practically impossible to isolate them and to ostracize them. The first time such converts led the natural born Jews astray was during the episode of the golden calf, whereas a short time later the same thing occurred in Numbers 11,4 when a group of people described by the Torah as אספסף instigated the craving for meat as a result of which tens of thousands of Israelites died a miserable death. Sifri Behaalotcha 86 attributes all this to these converts. Time and again such fair-weather converts have become the bane of our people.
Just as we learned from the order in which these last few paragraphs have been arranged that one sin brings in its wake another sin, we can learn from another sequence of paragraphs that one commandment meticulously observed will bring in its wake the fulfillment of other commandments.
In 22,6 we read about the commandment to release a mother bird before taking her chicks, followed by the commandment to install a railing on the roof of a new house. Following this the Torah instructs us not to mix certain species of seed, etc., etc. The message is that once we observe one commandment it will be easier to observe other commandments.
Rabbeinu Bahya
A Midrashic approach to the verse commencing with the words “these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom.” These kings were direct descendants of Esau as appears from the reading of the text. According to Shemot Rabbah 15,4 [not exactly, Ed.] these were all descendants of Esau, idol worshippers, indulging in promiscuous sex, and possessing great material wealth. Bereshit Rabbah 83,4 states that the name Mehetabel is an allusion to the fact that they tried to please many deities. The name “daughter of Matred” is interpreted as an allusion that she who had first been prepared and beautified for her husband was subsequently a source of trouble for her husband as the people of his generation indulged in illicit sex with her. The word “daughter of golden waters,” is an allusion to the material wealth of these people. They said of gold and silver: “so what?” (they had so much of it they did not treasure it). The whole paragraph teaches that the descendants of Esau were all wicked people. These verses contain further allusions to the characteristics of Esau’s descendants throughout the ages.
We are told, in the same Midrash for instance, that the name אלוף מגדיאל “chieftain of Magdiel,” is an allusion to Rome and its Empire. In Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 38 we are told that Esau received 100 provinces or countries during the period between then and the ascendancy of the Roman Empire as a reward for clearing out all of his belongings from the land of Israel at that time and leaving Yaakov free to live there unimpeded by his presence or the presence of any of his belongings. This is derived from the wording אלוף מגדיאל אלוף עירם, suggesting that the former name is that of a city, the latter that of a person.
Daniel prophesied concerning the Roman Empire (Daniel 11,36) “The king will do as he pleases and he will exalt himself greater than any god, and about the G’d of the gods he will speak fantastic things.” This is why the term מגדיאל is applied to this king in the Torah, a reference to גדול, “great”. Actually, he was the tenth of these Alufim, ”chiefs.” This is what Daniel said (7,24) ”And the ten horns- from that kingdom ten horns will arise, and another will arise after them who will be different from the former.” What Daniel had in mind was that ten kings would arise of whom the tenth would rule over Rome, and that his Empire would spread from Rome outwards. encompassing most of the civilised part of the globe. Concerning that nation, the Torah did not provide us with its name. All our prophets also constantly mention the greatness of that Empire without revealing its name. Daniel, who compared various Empires to “the lion,” “the bear,” and to “the leopard,” did not reveal the name of the fourth beast to which the fourth Empire could be compared. All he said concerning this unnamed beast (7,7) was that “it is excessively terrifying, awesome and strong; with immense iron teeth, it was eating and crumbling and trampling the rest with its feet.” Isaiah (13,1) also speaks of messages to or concerning the Empire of Egypt, (19,1) the Empire of Babylon (15,1) and the Empire of Moav. When it comes to specifying to whom the fourth message is addressed, all he said was (21,11) “a call comes to me from Seir:” משא דומה אלי קורא משעיר, שמר מה מלילה, שמר מה מליל, “watchman, what of the night? Watchman what of the night?” Elsewhere (Isaiah 35,9) the prophet speaks of ”no lion shall be there, no ferocious beast shall set foot on it, these shall not be found there but the redeemed shall walk it.” We also find that the prophet Jeremiah mentions all these various Empires without naming the last one. Compare Jeremiah 5,6: ”therefore the lion of the forest strikes them down, the wolf of the desert ravages them; a leopard lies in wait by their towns whoever leaves them will be torn to pieces.” In the whole Torah only Moses, and in Psalms only Assaph, mentions the name of the fourth beast. The name עירם is a reference to Rome and it is the subject of Psalms 80,14 in Assaph’s psalm where he wrote יכרסמנה חזיר מיער, “wild boars gnaw at it (Israel).” You will note that the letter ע in the word מיער has been suspended above the line. leaving the letters that remain as an allusion to Rome, i.e. רמי, this is why here when the tenth chief is mentioned, the Torah amplifies by adding the word עירם in addition to the name אלוף מגדיאל, the letters in the word עירם being the same as those in Assaph’s psalm where he speaks of מיער. In other words: “who is this אלוף מגדיאל? Answer: none other than the חזיר מיער, the wild boar mentioned in Psalms 80,14. The letters in the word עירם may be read as מעיר, an allusion to Numbers 24,19 והאביד שריד מעיר, “he (the redeemer of Israel) will destroy the remnant of the city (Rome).” Isaiah 25,2 may also be understood in the same vein כימת מעיר לגל קריה בצורה למפלה, “forYou have turned a city into a stone heap never to be rebuilt.” The letters in the word מעיר can also be rearranged to read ירעם. Concerning this word, David said in Psalms 18,14 וירעם בשמים ה’ ועליון יתן קולו ברד וגחלי אש, that in “the future the Lord will thunder from heaven, the Most High will give forth with His voice- hail and fiery coals.” He will destroy Rome.
Daniel prophesied similarly concerning the end of the Roman Empire when he wrote in Daniel 7,11 “I was watching. Then because of the sound of the haughty words which the horn spoke, I watched till the beast was slain and its body destroyed and consigned to the fire’s burning” The prophet Ovadiah also prophesied concerning the destruction of Edom when he wrote (Ovadiah 1) that the Celestial Court had ordained the destruction of Edom and his entire prophecy concerns only this subject and the justification for the destruction of Edom.
The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni near the end of Isaiah) remarks that only two prophets described their prophesies as חזון, “a vision,” i.e. Isaiah and Ovadiah. The numerical value of the combined letters in that word totals 71. Isaiah cursed Edom in the Celestial Court, whereas Ovadiah judged Edom in that same Court. There is a book called פרקי היכלות, from which our author quotes on occasion in which the various afflictions that Rome will experience in the future are discussed, i.e. that the decline of that Empire will be so drastic that a person will offer it for sale for a small copper coin and he will not find anyone willing to buy it even at that price.
Included in these ten אלופים you also find one who is described here as אלוף עלוה, whereas in Chronicles I 1,51, he is described as אלוף עליה. In order to maintain the uniformity of the Torah and to counter accusations of inaccuracy, the name in Chronicles is read as אלוף עלוה just as in the Torah. The reason the spelling is different is that it is an illusion to the negative characteristic of the descendants of Esau who speak untruths and do not even write their names truthfully. Psalms 144,8 alludes to such practices and refers to people who speak lies in order to make G’d’s words appear not to be true.
Bereshit Rabbah 83,1 describes the fact that in the early stages, before Israel had kings of its own, the Edomite nation was in a state of some turmoil, as evident from the fact that their leaders are referred to as merely אלופים, whereas subsequently, after the Israelites had elected a king, the Edomites were presided over by kings who possessed the authority which the word implies. Eventually they would suffer the fate predicted in Ovadiah 21 when “the liberators would march up on Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau; and dominion shall be the Lord’s.”
We are told, in the same Midrash for instance, that the name אלוף מגדיאל “chieftain of Magdiel,” is an allusion to Rome and its Empire. In Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 38 we are told that Esau received 100 provinces or countries during the period between then and the ascendancy of the Roman Empire as a reward for clearing out all of his belongings from the land of Israel at that time and leaving Yaakov free to live there unimpeded by his presence or the presence of any of his belongings. This is derived from the wording אלוף מגדיאל אלוף עירם, suggesting that the former name is that of a city, the latter that of a person.
Daniel prophesied concerning the Roman Empire (Daniel 11,36) “The king will do as he pleases and he will exalt himself greater than any god, and about the G’d of the gods he will speak fantastic things.” This is why the term מגדיאל is applied to this king in the Torah, a reference to גדול, “great”. Actually, he was the tenth of these Alufim, ”chiefs.” This is what Daniel said (7,24) ”And the ten horns- from that kingdom ten horns will arise, and another will arise after them who will be different from the former.” What Daniel had in mind was that ten kings would arise of whom the tenth would rule over Rome, and that his Empire would spread from Rome outwards. encompassing most of the civilised part of the globe. Concerning that nation, the Torah did not provide us with its name. All our prophets also constantly mention the greatness of that Empire without revealing its name. Daniel, who compared various Empires to “the lion,” “the bear,” and to “the leopard,” did not reveal the name of the fourth beast to which the fourth Empire could be compared. All he said concerning this unnamed beast (7,7) was that “it is excessively terrifying, awesome and strong; with immense iron teeth, it was eating and crumbling and trampling the rest with its feet.” Isaiah (13,1) also speaks of messages to or concerning the Empire of Egypt, (19,1) the Empire of Babylon (15,1) and the Empire of Moav. When it comes to specifying to whom the fourth message is addressed, all he said was (21,11) “a call comes to me from Seir:” משא דומה אלי קורא משעיר, שמר מה מלילה, שמר מה מליל, “watchman, what of the night? Watchman what of the night?” Elsewhere (Isaiah 35,9) the prophet speaks of ”no lion shall be there, no ferocious beast shall set foot on it, these shall not be found there but the redeemed shall walk it.” We also find that the prophet Jeremiah mentions all these various Empires without naming the last one. Compare Jeremiah 5,6: ”therefore the lion of the forest strikes them down, the wolf of the desert ravages them; a leopard lies in wait by their towns whoever leaves them will be torn to pieces.” In the whole Torah only Moses, and in Psalms only Assaph, mentions the name of the fourth beast. The name עירם is a reference to Rome and it is the subject of Psalms 80,14 in Assaph’s psalm where he wrote יכרסמנה חזיר מיער, “wild boars gnaw at it (Israel).” You will note that the letter ע in the word מיער has been suspended above the line. leaving the letters that remain as an allusion to Rome, i.e. רמי, this is why here when the tenth chief is mentioned, the Torah amplifies by adding the word עירם in addition to the name אלוף מגדיאל, the letters in the word עירם being the same as those in Assaph’s psalm where he speaks of מיער. In other words: “who is this אלוף מגדיאל? Answer: none other than the חזיר מיער, the wild boar mentioned in Psalms 80,14. The letters in the word עירם may be read as מעיר, an allusion to Numbers 24,19 והאביד שריד מעיר, “he (the redeemer of Israel) will destroy the remnant of the city (Rome).” Isaiah 25,2 may also be understood in the same vein כימת מעיר לגל קריה בצורה למפלה, “forYou have turned a city into a stone heap never to be rebuilt.” The letters in the word מעיר can also be rearranged to read ירעם. Concerning this word, David said in Psalms 18,14 וירעם בשמים ה’ ועליון יתן קולו ברד וגחלי אש, that in “the future the Lord will thunder from heaven, the Most High will give forth with His voice- hail and fiery coals.” He will destroy Rome.
Daniel prophesied similarly concerning the end of the Roman Empire when he wrote in Daniel 7,11 “I was watching. Then because of the sound of the haughty words which the horn spoke, I watched till the beast was slain and its body destroyed and consigned to the fire’s burning” The prophet Ovadiah also prophesied concerning the destruction of Edom when he wrote (Ovadiah 1) that the Celestial Court had ordained the destruction of Edom and his entire prophecy concerns only this subject and the justification for the destruction of Edom.
The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni near the end of Isaiah) remarks that only two prophets described their prophesies as חזון, “a vision,” i.e. Isaiah and Ovadiah. The numerical value of the combined letters in that word totals 71. Isaiah cursed Edom in the Celestial Court, whereas Ovadiah judged Edom in that same Court. There is a book called פרקי היכלות, from which our author quotes on occasion in which the various afflictions that Rome will experience in the future are discussed, i.e. that the decline of that Empire will be so drastic that a person will offer it for sale for a small copper coin and he will not find anyone willing to buy it even at that price.
Included in these ten אלופים you also find one who is described here as אלוף עלוה, whereas in Chronicles I 1,51, he is described as אלוף עליה. In order to maintain the uniformity of the Torah and to counter accusations of inaccuracy, the name in Chronicles is read as אלוף עלוה just as in the Torah. The reason the spelling is different is that it is an illusion to the negative characteristic of the descendants of Esau who speak untruths and do not even write their names truthfully. Psalms 144,8 alludes to such practices and refers to people who speak lies in order to make G’d’s words appear not to be true.
Bereshit Rabbah 83,1 describes the fact that in the early stages, before Israel had kings of its own, the Edomite nation was in a state of some turmoil, as evident from the fact that their leaders are referred to as merely אלופים, whereas subsequently, after the Israelites had elected a king, the Edomites were presided over by kings who possessed the authority which the word implies. Eventually they would suffer the fate predicted in Ovadiah 21 when “the liberators would march up on Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau; and dominion shall be the Lord’s.”