הָ֥בָה נִֽתְחַכְּמָ֖ה ל֑וֹ פֶּן־יִרְבֶּ֗ה וְהָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־תִקְרֶ֤אנָה מִלְחָמָה֙ וְנוֹסַ֤ף גַּם־הוּא֙ עַל־שֹׂ֣נְאֵ֔ינוּ וְנִלְחַם־בָּ֖נוּ וְעָלָ֥ה מִן־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
Halikayo, gumawa tayo ng matalinong paraan laban sa kanila, baka sila ay dumami pa, at mangyari na kapag may sumiklab na digmaan, sila rin ay makikisama sa ating mga kaaway, at makikipaglaban sa atin, at aalis sa lupain.”
Kli Yakar
But Moab, meaning the general masses, did not consider what had happened before. Because they did not know what it was, and they were only afraid of the present situation — what they saw with their eyes: a numerous and mighty people. Therefore it says, Moab feared the people because they were numerous. The common people of Moab were afraid of two groups, and one fear was not like the other. They feared the mixed multitude [erev rav] because of their great numbers, as it is stated in the Midrash that the mixed multitude was twice 600,000, and about them it says, Moab feared the people because they were numerous. The verse calls the mixed multitude by the name the people, because they were not from the children of Israel, because they were numerous — for they were truly many. But the children of Israel, who were not so numerous, they did not fear them due to their numbers. However, from another perspective, the fear of Israel was upon them, about which it says, Moab was disgusted because of the children of Israel.
As we explained in Parshat Shemot (Exodus 1:12) on the verse and they were disgusted because of the children of Israel, the meaning is not that Israel became like thorns in their eyes, for if that were the case, it should have said “they were disgusted with the children of Israel.” What is the meaning of because of? Rather, the opposite is logical — that the Egyptians compared themselves to thorns in relation to the children of Israel, who were compared to a vine, as it says: You removed a vine from Egypt; You drove out nations and planted it. You cleared a place before it, and it took root and filled the land (Psalms 80:9-10).
For it is the way of the world that when a field owner wants to plant a vineyard in a field full of thorns, he uproots the thorns from their roots and throws them far away in order to plant the vine in their place. Likewise, the Egyptians feared that Israel would be planted in the land like a vine, and they [the Egyptians] would be driven from the land like a fleeing thorn (2 Samuel 23:6), as it says, And they will go up from the land (Exodus 1:10). It should have said “and we will go up,” etc. Therefore it says, they were disgusted because of the children of Israel, meaning they would be shaken out from the land because of the children of Israel who were compared to a vine.
Similarly, it says here, Moab was disgusted because of the children of Israel. They were afraid lest Moab become like a thorn cast out from the land because of the children of Israel, because of the vine which God moved from Egypt to drive out nations before them and plant them there. Therefore it says the children of Israel for Israel the elder is no more because he has already gone to his world, but his children would come there. But not the mixed multitude who are called the people for what advantage does one man have over another (Sanhedrin 65b)? And what advantage does the mixed multitude have over other nations that would cause God to drive out nations for them and plant them in their place, if not on account of the children of Israel?
As we explained in Parshat Shemot (Exodus 1:12) on the verse and they were disgusted because of the children of Israel, the meaning is not that Israel became like thorns in their eyes, for if that were the case, it should have said “they were disgusted with the children of Israel.” What is the meaning of because of? Rather, the opposite is logical — that the Egyptians compared themselves to thorns in relation to the children of Israel, who were compared to a vine, as it says: You removed a vine from Egypt; You drove out nations and planted it. You cleared a place before it, and it took root and filled the land (Psalms 80:9-10).
For it is the way of the world that when a field owner wants to plant a vineyard in a field full of thorns, he uproots the thorns from their roots and throws them far away in order to plant the vine in their place. Likewise, the Egyptians feared that Israel would be planted in the land like a vine, and they [the Egyptians] would be driven from the land like a fleeing thorn (2 Samuel 23:6), as it says, And they will go up from the land (Exodus 1:10). It should have said “and we will go up,” etc. Therefore it says, they were disgusted because of the children of Israel, meaning they would be shaken out from the land because of the children of Israel who were compared to a vine.
Similarly, it says here, Moab was disgusted because of the children of Israel. They were afraid lest Moab become like a thorn cast out from the land because of the children of Israel, because of the vine which God moved from Egypt to drive out nations before them and plant them there. Therefore it says the children of Israel for Israel the elder is no more because he has already gone to his world, but his children would come there. But not the mixed multitude who are called the people for what advantage does one man have over another (Sanhedrin 65b)? And what advantage does the mixed multitude have over other nations that would cause God to drive out nations for them and plant them in their place, if not on account of the children of Israel?
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואני אקשה את לב פרעה, “and I will harden the heart of Pharaoh.” Many people ask that if G’d’ hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he refused to release the Israelites how could G’d justify bringing the plagues upon him and the Egyptians seeing these people had acted under duress? Such plagues would represent caprice, undeserved violence by the Creator against people who were not guilty. How can we reconcile this with our concept of a fair and just G’d? Punishing Pharaoh for divinely inspired obstinacy and refusal to change his ways seems unfair. The answer is, of course, that Pharaoh had already been a confirmed sinner, having committed other sins which accounted for his forfeiting the right to do Teshuvah, repentance. If his only sin had been that he refused to let the Israelites go, and G’d had indeed made his heart stubborn on that score alone, punishing him would indeed have been doing violence to his rights as a human being.
Pharaoh’s original sin versus the Jewish people has been spelled out in Exodus 3,5 where he used the natural (or unnatural) increase of the births amongst the Jewish people as a pretext to “outsmart” them and to kill their babies. Seeing that he had displayed his wickedness for all to see without having been interfered with by G’d, the time had now come when his punishment was that he was deprived of his free choice. Had G’d allowed Pharaoh and his people to become penitents He could not even have punished them for what they had done up until now. We have proof of this from the story of Jonah and Nineveh. G’d accepted the repentance of the people of Nineveh and they completely escaped punishment. This is why G’d had to find a stratagem to prevent the Egyptians from becoming penitents at this stage.
Pharaoh’s original sin versus the Jewish people has been spelled out in Exodus 3,5 where he used the natural (or unnatural) increase of the births amongst the Jewish people as a pretext to “outsmart” them and to kill their babies. Seeing that he had displayed his wickedness for all to see without having been interfered with by G’d, the time had now come when his punishment was that he was deprived of his free choice. Had G’d allowed Pharaoh and his people to become penitents He could not even have punished them for what they had done up until now. We have proof of this from the story of Jonah and Nineveh. G’d accepted the repentance of the people of Nineveh and they completely escaped punishment. This is why G’d had to find a stratagem to prevent the Egyptians from becoming penitents at this stage.
Ramban
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 10:2. 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 4 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.,’8Verse 4 here. 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].”
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 10:2. 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 4 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.,’8Verse 4 here. 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].”