לְסִיח֤וֹן ׀ מֶ֤לֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִ֗י וּ֭לְעוֹג מֶ֣לֶךְ הַבָּשָׁ֑ן וּ֝לְכֹ֗ל מַמְלְכ֥וֹת כְּנָֽעַן׃
si Sihon na hari ng mga Amorrheo, at si Og na hari ng Bashan, at ang lahat ng mga kaharian ng Canaan;
Rabbeinu Bahya
וירא בלק בן צפור את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמורי, “Balak son of Tzippor saw all that the Israelites had done to the Emorite.” This Balak was the king of Moav as the Torah reveals almost immediately (verse 4). Why did the Torah describe his kingship in such a peculiar fashion, i.e. “he was a king over the Moabites at that time?” Why did it not simply write: “Balak, king of Moav, saw what the Israelites had done, etc.?” Perhaps the Torah wanted to contrast the attitude to Sichon and Og to the Israelites to that of Balak. The former had been full of self-confidence, arrogance, even. Not so Balak. As soon as Balak realised the fate that had befallen Sichon and Og he no longer considered himself as a king. Kings are arrogant by definition. Balak had learned בעת ההיא, “at that time,” i.e. at the time of the defeat of Sichon and Og, that kings with mighty armies were no match for the Jewish people who did not even have a crowned head at their helm.
The fact that Sichon and Og were not just “average” kings amongst the Canaanites is pointed out by G’d Himself who, whenever He speaks about His defeating the Canaanites cites the Emorites as the ones whom He humbled, i.e. they (compare Amos 2,13); represented the mightiest tribe of the Canaanite nation. Balak had previously considered the proximity of Sichon and Og as his insurance policy against being invaded by the Israelites. When he saw that his paid “protectors” had themselves proved inadequate he suddenly became filled with fear.
The fact that Sichon and Og were not just “average” kings amongst the Canaanites is pointed out by G’d Himself who, whenever He speaks about His defeating the Canaanites cites the Emorites as the ones whom He humbled, i.e. they (compare Amos 2,13); represented the mightiest tribe of the Canaanite nation. Balak had previously considered the proximity of Sichon and Og as his insurance policy against being invaded by the Israelites. When he saw that his paid “protectors” had themselves proved inadequate he suddenly became filled with fear.
Rashi
great kings Here he alluded to the thirty-one kings, and he compared for them Pharaoh and his host and the plagues of Egypt to mighty kings, harsher than they. Sihon was equal to all of them, [and Og was equal to all of them (Machzor Vitry)], each one individually, and so did he explain above (135: 11): “Sihon the king of the Amorites and Og the king of Bashan and all the kingdoms of Canaan.” So it is in the Aggadah.