English translation — בלק א

A.

At the beginning of the parshah, Rashi quotes <b>all</b> the words of the first verse "And Balak son of Tzippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorite" and explains "He said: These two kings on whom we relied did not stand before them; we, all the more so, how much more so,

therefore Moav was afraid."

The commentators say¹,

that with his commentary Rashi is <b>innovating</b>,

that what the verse relates further "and Moav was afraid",

is not a matter in itself,

but rather it comes in continuation of "And Balak saw etc.": When Balak saw what the Jews had done to the Amorite,

how they had vanquished the two kings Sichon and Og with their people,

Balak made the kal vachomer — if indeed these "two kings on whom we relied did not stand before them,

we, all the more so, how much more so",

and therefore — "and Moav was afraid."

It is, however, not understood:

a)

If one were to learn like the קא סלקא דעתך,

that with "ויגר מואב" a separate matter begins and &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; as a result of "וירא בלק" — then the entire verse "וירא בלק" has no explanation&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;

: למאי נפקא־מינה whether Balak saw this or not,

if this did not lead to any results?

— It is therefore understandable,

also according to Rashi's explanation,

that "וירא בלק etc." is told as a cause for ויגר מואב — so what does Rashi &lt;b&gt;innovate&lt;/b&gt; with his explanation "לפיכך ויגר מואב"?

b)

In most cases where Rashi explains a verse,

he quotes from it only the first words³

(and hints at the rest by means of "etc."⁴)

— why does Rashi not content himself in our verse with quoting only the beginning words "And Balak saw",

but he brings down also the entire further continuation of the verse,

until the last word "to the Amorite"?

c)

In order to explain the a fortiori argument of Balak,

that since "two kings did not stand before them" is "we all the more so",

it seemingly is relevant to emphasize mainly the <b>strength</b> of Sichon and Og.

Why does Rashi need to add the detail "that we were confident of them"?

And also: how does he derive this from the verse,

where there seemingly is no hint of this?

2.

is the explanation of all this:

At the time of the "ben chameish

(for Mikra)

" he learns the verses "Vayar Balak etc. Vayagar Moav etc.",

it appears to him <b>in plain sense</b>,

that "Vayar etc." and "Vayagar etc.",

are two separate matters

(and <b>not</b> that the "Vayar" caused the "Vayagar")

Because besides this,

that the verse itself expresses,

that the fear of Moab for the people of Israel was — “<b>for</b> it is great” — because of the fact that Jews are numerous and mighty — and Moab knew this also <b>before</b> the war of Sihon and Og,

for the Jews had already earlier surrounded the land of Moab “all its south and east”⁵

So even if you say,

that then Moab was not yet convinced of the full strength of the Jews,

and they learned of it only after they saw “all that Israel did to the Amorite”⁶

But it is nevertheless difficult to bind both verses into one continuum,

because in plain meaning it turns out,

that the "vayagar Moav" came from that which <b>Moav</b> saw,

and not⁷

because of that which "vayar <b>Balak"</b><b>⁸</b>

And from the implication one would need to learn,

that the two verses "vayar Balak" and "vayagar Moav" speak about two different details⁹

: the matter of "vayagar <b>Moav</b>"

(the fear of the <b>nation</b>)

which stemmed from that which "<b>great</b> is he",

from the <b>multitude</b> of Jews,

had indeed begun already before the war with Sichon and Og,

and as mentioned above,

that this the Moabites saw after that when the Jews surrounded the land of Moav,

and from then on a fear of Jews fell upon them,

Nevertheless, the people then could not try to find a counsel for this,

because upon their king,

one must say,

the multitude of Jews did <b>not</b> cast any fear.

When, however, the war with Sihon and Og took place,

and Balak

(king of Moab)

saw "all that Israel had done to the Amorite",

then also <b>he</b> began to frighten himself before the Jews; i.e.,

that is,

that to "and Moab was terrified" was also added the "and Balak was afraid" and also <b>his</b> fear¹⁰

— Moab had already then openly expressed the fear,

and "and Moab said etc.",

they asked counsel from the elders of Midian what to do,

and Balak sent "messengers to Balaam etc.";

And although that <b>the</b> explanation is not smooth — because if so,

the verse "And Moab was terrified etc." would have had to

stand <b>before</b><b>¹¹</b>

verse "And Balak saw etc." — nevertheless,

were it not for Rashi's commentary, one would still have sooner learned this plain-sense explanation

(that "And <b>Balak</b> saw" and "And <b>Moab</b> was terrified" are <b>two</b> separate matters)

— therefore Rashi needs to <b>innovate</b> that "And Balak saw etc. <b>therefore</b> And Moab was terrified."

3.

But according to this, the above-mentioned question still remains: if so,

the verse should have said,

"And <b>Moab</b> saw" and not "And <b>Balak</b> saw" — Rashi addresses this with the words "for we were confident of them":

This very matter,

that the kings of Canaan paid tribute to Sihon and Og in order to prevent them "that troops should not pass over them"¹²,

was <b>not</b> a well-known thing —

that when the Jews sent messengers to Sichon with the request: "Let me pass through your land",

he answered them "My entire self I sit here only to guard them from you, and you say thus" — so if one were to assume that this was a well-known thing,

the Jews would initially not have turned to him that he should let them through

(or they would have at least mentioned this in their mission to him: that despite this,

that he is a hired guard "that they should not pass etc.",

he must nevertheless let the Jews through)

— it is thus a proof,

that this was a secret matter,

that aside from the kings of Canaan

(and the king of Moab)

no one knew about it]

and therefore the Moabites would not have been affected by what they saw that the Jews had conquered Sichon and Og,

and this would not have aroused in them any additional fear&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

— since they could not know that with the downfall of Sichon and Og they had lost those upon whom they were "relying"; and that the Jews are great and strong — this they knew from before,

therefore no new thing came to them when they saw "all that Israel had done to the Amorite"

But at the time that Balak heard what the Jews did to Sichon and Og,

he in this "saw" something entirely different: he saw that they had destroyed those who "we were confident in them,"

that from now on there is no longer anyone on whom to rely¹⁴.

Therefore Balak,

because of great fear,

could no longer conceal this secret from his state officials and also revealed it to them,

what the defeat of Sichon and Og means — and "therefore Moab was terrified"¹⁵.

4.

Seemingly there is a way to explain the verses "And <b>Balak</b> saw" and "And <b>Moab</b> was afraid" in the manner that Rashi says earlier¹⁶

Regarding "And he sent messengers"

(To the king of Edom and to Sichon)

: That sometimes it says "And <b>Israel</b> sent messengers" and sometimes it says that <b>Moses</b> sent them,

is that

(One and the same)

Because "Moses is Israel and Israel is Moses",

And this teaches us that "The prince of the generation is like the entire generation,

For the prince is everything".

And similarly to this one could seemingly explain also in our parshah,

That what earlier it says "And <b>Balak</b> saw" and afterwards "And <b>Moab</b> was afraid",

It does not mean that earlier it speaks specifically about Balak and likewise later not specifically about the nation

(Moab)

— Rather both verses speak about Balak

(Or both about Moab)

And the verse changes the language only because of the reason,

That being the king

(Prince)

Of Moab, "Balak is Moab and Moab is Balak".

But in truth, one cannot learn it in this way,

because¹⁷

That which "Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe" is only an explanation of how it <b>can</b> <b>stand</b> Moshe instead of Israel and Israel instead of Moshe; it is, however, a simple matter,

that there must also be a <b>reason</b> why the verse says "And <b>Israel</b> sent messengers to Sichon"

(whereas in truth, Moshe sent them¹⁸)

— for with this the verse intends to inform¹⁹

how Moshe could give the promise

to <b>all</b> Jews,

that "we did not <b>turn aside</b> into field or vineyard, we did not <b>drink</b> water from a well, etc.",

because the mission indeed came from all Jews²⁰.

— although there too they promised "We will <b>not pass</b> through field or vineyard, etc."²²

- it is because there they sought all sorts of means to effect with the king of Edom²³,

that he should allow passing through his land²⁴,

and therefore the emissaries came in the name of <b>Moshe</b>,

meaning,

that when they will tell him that they are emissaries from Moshe himself,

who is comparable to an <b>angel</b><b>²⁵</b>

it will evoke a fear upon the king of Edom and he will permit them to pass through his land.

But regarding Sichon,

whom they were <b>not</b> intent to frighten with the name of Moshe,

the emissaries came in the name of Israel,

so that by him the promise of "We will not turn aside, etc."²⁶ would be accepted

— and therefore it states there "And <b>Israel</b> sent messengers".

But when there would <b>not</b> be the reason,

the verse would not have written

(Moshe instead of Israel or)

Israel instead of Moshe solely because of that which "Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe."

And from this it is understandable regarding our matter: since that by "Vayar" and "Vayagar" there is <b>not</b> any reason to set aside Balak instead of Moav and Moav instead of Balak,

therefore it is forced that with "Vayar Balak" is meant exclusively Balak

(and not the people),

and with "Vayagar Moav" — the people Moav

(and not Balak).

And therefore Rashi learns that Balak saw such a thing that others did not see,

that the "two kings &lt;b&gt;that we were&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;confident&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;about them&lt;/b&gt; did not stand before them",

and when the people had

found out about this, that "and Balak saw" is "and Moab was afraid",

as above, page 63.

5.

With his commentary "that we were confident about them" Rashi answers another question:

According to the simple understanding,

that the fear of Balak came only from this, that he saw how the Jews had defeated such strong kings as Sichon and Og and he made the kal vachomer regarding himself,

one can ask: this kal vachomer he could have made immediately after the victory of the Jews over Sichon king of the Emori

(even before they waged war with Og king of the Bashan)

— because also Sichon king of the Emori was very strong²⁷,

similar to Og²⁸,

and if "Sichon could not stand before them, certainly we [cannot]" — then why did the fear for the Jews awaken in him only after they had also defeated Og king of the Bashan?

But according to Rashi's emphasis, it is understandable simply: because as long as Og was still in his strength,

Balak did not fear so much,

having at least one guardian on whom to rely; but when he discovered that he already had absolutely no one to trust in,

because "&lt;b&gt;two&lt;/b&gt; kings that we were confident in did not stand before them",

then only then did the strong fear awaken.

6.

Based on the above, it is also understandable,

why Rashi quotes not only the words "And Balak saw",

but also the following words of the verse until the last word "to Moab",

because the point of Rashi's commentary pertains also to the interpretation of "did" "to Moab":

If one would learn that in that which "Israel did to the Amorite" Balak was frightened by that which Jews are <b>stronger</b> even than the Amorite — and since that

(as above ibid.)

<b>this</b> detail he could have perceived immediately after the war of Sichon even before the war with Og king of Bashan — then the reasoning would have compelled to learn that the "did" "to the Amorite" means <b>literally</b>,

only to Sichon king of the Amorite — and the passages are out of order²⁹.

But according to Rashi's explanation: "that we were <b>confident</b> about them",

one must learn that by the "did" "to the Amorite" is meant also to Og king of Bashan — because he is one of the "<b>two</b> kings that we were confident about them"

(for also Og is sometimes called "king of the Amorite"*²⁹)

— and according to this interpretation it comes out quite smoothly,

that the passages are arranged in order.

7.

On the above explanation in Rashi,

that with the words "that we were confident about them" Rashi intends to indicate,

that the emphasis here is not the strength of the two kings,

but rather the matter of "confident about them" itself

(that Moab had become accustomed and therefore became frightened)

— is seemingly a difficulty from the conclusion in Rashi's commentary "we, all the more so"³⁰

It is indeed a self-understood thing,

that when one says a certain matter and then adds a second matter in the manner of "all the more so" against the first — it means then that by saying the first, "lenient" matter, one is finished

(not its implication,

by itself,

but)

to bring out through it the greater certainty in the second, "stringent" matter —

So if we learn that with "we were confident in them" Rashi comes to emphasize the <b>strength</b> of the kings — then the conclusion "we all the more so" is understandable: what of Sichon and Og who are such mighty kings,

so that even others were "confident in them" and yet Jews defeated them — it is all the more so that they will certainly conquer Moab;

But according to the explanation above,

that Balak's fear came from the very fact that there are no longer the "two kings that we were confident in them" — then apparently the conclusion in the manner of a fortiori "we all the more so" does not fit here,

then there is altogether no need for any a fortiori argument.

8.

is the explanation of this,

that with the phrase "we all the more so" Rashi intends to answer a question that arises in the general topic:

In the previous parshah³¹

Rashi relates,

that also to Moab the Jews sent messengers,

with the request,

that he should let them pass through his land; and when the king of Moab did not grant them this,

the Jews encircled the land of Moab — but the border of Moab they did not cross.

And here it immediately becomes difficult: What was the reason that Moab afterwards was so afraid of the Jews,

since Moab had already seen that the Jews <b>do</b> <b>not</b> <b>want</b>

(to cross the border and)

wage war with him³²?

And Rashi addresses the question with his wording "These two kings in whom we were confident did not stand before them,

<b>we</b> <b>all the more so</b>": Balak thought that what the Jews had previously refrained from waging war with Moab,

it was

(<b>not</b> because of³³

the command of G‑d "Do not distress Moab and do not provoke them to war"³⁴,

but)

because they were afraid of the outcome of a war, whatever it would be

(except — by an explicit command from G‑d)

knowing that the sword

(i.

e.

also — victory in war)

was given

(to Esau and his heirs)

not to Jacob and his heirs³⁵

and especially that Sichon and Og would come to his aid — but now,

after the Jews waged war and defeated the kings Sichon and Og,

they will no longer refrain from war with Moab.

And this means Rashi with "These two kings ..

did not stand before them, we all the more so",

so if the two kings that we were confident about did not "stand"

(did not have a stand,

no place-holding)

regarding Jews; that the Jews did not reckon with them and had the breadth to wage war with them — then all the more so that "we",

when we

(Moab)

remained alone

(and we no longer have the kings that we were confident about),

we will certainly not "stand" against them,

and they will &lt;b&gt;surely&lt;/b&gt; wage war with us.

9.

In the above one can add another point:

As said earlier

(ibid.),

was when Balak saw how the Jews had killed the "two kings that we were confident about",

he about this told the people,

and this caused that "Moab was terrified".

And superficially,

why did he need to tell everyone about this: since they could not help in it at all,

so why did he need to cause the "terror" in the land?

is the answer to this,

that at the time of "And Balak saw all that Israel had done to the Amorite",

he became bewildered and he could not control himself and restrain himself from not speaking about this,

because "the wicked are in the power of their heart".

And here one sees the difference between Balak until,

to distinguish,

Moses our teacher:

Balak immediately publicized his fear,

until the entire nation was afraid.

But not so Moshe Rabbeinu,

even at the time that he was afraid of Og, "lest the merit of Avraham stand for him"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

not only did he not tell anyone about it,

but moreover: even on himself was no fear at all discernible,

and as the language in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;,

that it was only "&lt;b&gt;in his heart&lt;/b&gt;".

10.

And this is also one of the matters of Yud-Beis Tammuz which are related to the matters of parshas Chukas&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;.

By my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe,

the "histalshus of Moshe"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

of our generation,

one finds a special emphasis on such conduct and in connection with the imprisonment:

When the Rebbe saw that there were accusations, G‑d forbid,

and as he said "before 5687 I was very frightened"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

but together with that,

not only did he not show it,

but on the contrary,

at that same time

(and even when they had already arrested him in practice)

he still encouraged and strengthened the flock of his pasture,

to increase and strengthen the work of spreading Torah and strengthening Judaism,

Also, being already in the Spalerna prison and knowing clearly the terrible danger for the nation and for the entire work of spreading Judaism — he decided with himself and in his language: "I am not permitted to think such thoughts that cause lowliness of spirit"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

; "to be strong and firm,

without fear.

to speak in clear language etc."&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

; "and I am obligated ..

not to be alarmed and not to fear,

in order that I may hold my ground not to turn right or left,

from that which I have decided,

not to give the pride of Jacob to be trampled"&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;,

And he carried it out &lt;b&gt;in practice&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

And this very thing helped to bring about the "Into your hand I have given him"&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;,

that they emerged with a complete victory,

and in a manner of "with a high hand" and "with a revealed head"&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Balak 5725)