וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד יושב הנגב, The Canaanite, i.e. the King of Arad who dwelled in the south heard, etc.” Actually, this was not a Canaanite tribe but Amalek (Tanchuma Chukat 18). The King is described as a Canaanite as he decided to speak the Canaanite dialect in order to deceive the people about his identity. He hoped to thereby make the Israelites pray for deliverance from the Canaanite attack whereas they had not been attacked by Canaanites at all. If G’d would deliver them from the Canaanites he, Amalek, would remain unscathed. Israel were not taking chances as they appealed to G’d to be delivered from the attacker without specifying his nationality. They simply said: “if You will deliver us from this nation, etc.” (verse 2).

דרך האתרים, “by the route of the spies.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this expression is “the spies.” The Torah means that the Amalekites had heard that the Israelites now were moving along the same route that the spies had traveled 38 years earlier. This is also Onkelos’ understanding of these words.

A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Chukat 18: the word האתרים is an allusion to the “great traveler (spy),” i.e. the Holy Ark which was in the habit of traveling three days’ march ahead of the main body of the people in order to spy out (find a location) for the people to make camp (Numbers 10,33). Some commentators feel that the king described here as the King of Arad was in fact Sichon the King of the Emorites and the reason he is referred to here as “the Canaanite” is that that every Emorite is also a Canaanite by definition. Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 3 say that the news which the Canaanites had heard was that Aaron had died and that the protective clouds above the camp of the Israelites had disappeared. This is the meaning of 20,29: “the whole congregation saw that Aaron had died.” How could they all have seen it? They had not climbed Hor Hahar! They noticed that the cloud had disappeared and they realized that its presence had been due to Aaron’s merit. Up until that time the encampment of the Israelites had not been visible to the other nations at all. Rabbi Avohu said that instead of reading the word ויראו, “they saw,” it could be read וַיֵרָאוּ with the vowels tzeyre and kametz, and the meaning would be: “they had become visible.” Tanchuma also writes in that vein, i.e. the Jewish people now looked like a woman whose head-covering had been removed.

ויסעו מהר ההר דרך ים סוף לסבב את ארץ אדם, “They journeyed away from Hor Hahar in the direction of the Sea of Reeds to commence their trip around the land of Edom.” Seeing that the King of Edom did not permit them to cross his territory they were forced to backtrack seven way stations before taking the route around the land of Edom. Our sages in Tanchuma Chukat 18 link this to Deut. 10,6: “the Children of Israel had traveled from Be'erot Yaakon to Mosserot where Aaron died. We know that Aaron had died at Hor Hahar. The meaning therefore is that they backtracked and only eulogized Aaron at Mosserot so that it appeared to them as if Aaron had died then.

כי אין לחם ואין מים, “for there was neither bread nor water.” The statement that there was no bread seems incomprehensible seeing they received the manna daily! They also must have had plenty of the water which had gushed forth from the rock in great quantities! We must understand the people’s complaint as being a rebellion against their unnatural state of existence. Other nations had abundant supplies of bread and water both of which could be stored whereas the Jewish people wondered from day to day if they would have bread and water on the morrow. Seeing that the continued existence of the people appeared to hinge on immediate reward and punishment they felt themselves in a uniquely disadvantaged position when compared to the Gentiles. Moreover, they claimed, “even the daily manna we receive is an inferior kind of bread as instead of giving our stomachs the feeling that it is full after having eaten it, our stomachs feel quite light, i.e. empty.” They expressed themselves as being fed up with that kind of existence. They knew of no other creature born of a mother that continuously imbibed food without having to excrete any of it (based on Yuma 75). G’d had intended that the daily dependence of the people on that day’s manna would teach them to put their faith in Him so that their dependence on Him should be like that of the slave on his master. He had related to the people as if they were on the level of angels. They now had become guilty of a terrible slander against the heavenly manna. The people now used this fact as something negative, found fault with the heavenly food! Seeing their sin consisted of slander, G’d sent against them the creatures which had invented slander, i.e. snakes. Tanchuma Chukat 19 describes the punishment as fitting the crime seeing that however many different kinds of creature a snake devours they all taste like dust to it, as it had been cursed with: “dust you shall eat all the days of your life!” (Genesis 3,14). The Israelites by comparison had been given a single type of food, which however assumed all kinds of different tastes in accordance with the owner’s wishes. Another reason they were being punished through snake bites was that during the entire 40 years G’d had ensured that the snakes whose natural habitat is the desert would not attack any Israelite. Seeing that the Israelites had not appreciated this G’d simply did not continue to work this miracle and the snakes which now bit the people were not a plague, but merely the inhabitants of that desert. The reason why the Torah does not write: “G’d sent snakes against the people,” i.e. seraphim, but it writes: ”the snakes which are the seraphim,” underlines that these snakes were not a new or different phenomenon at all. When Moses had told Pharaoh that G’d would punish him with an invasion of wild beasts (Exodus 8,17), he did not say הנני משליח בך ערוב, “here I am about to sent against you wild beasts,” but he said את הערוב. By this he meant that the wild beasts which are normally content to stay in their habitat will change their nature and invade the urban areas. Similarly here; the snakes which had suppressed their lifestyle by not harming the Jewish people though biting Gentiles, would now not practice any restraint whatsoever in their habitual confrontation with human beings, Israelite or not. The term לחם הקלוקל, is an insult, as if the Torah had written that the manna was the לחם קל שבקלים, “the least valuable kind of bread there was.”

ויאמרו חטאנו כי דברנו בה' ובך, “they said: ‘we have sinned in that we spoke out against G’d and against you.’” They asked forgiveness from Moses and admitted their guilt. Moses then prayed on their behalf as it says: “Moses prayed on behalf of the people” (verse 7). This episode teaches that if someone asks a person’s forgiveness for insults committed against him the injured party should not be cruel and refuse to accept the apology (compare Tanchuma Chukat 19). We find, for instance that Avraham prayed on behalf of Avimelech who had wronged both him and Sarah (Genesis 20,17); also Job had prayed on behalf of his friends (Job 42,10). If someone refuses to pray on behalf of his fellow when called upon to do so he is called “a sinner.” Samuel explained this to the people when he explained to them why he was prepared to pray on their behalf (Samuel I 12,23).

ויסר מעלינו את הנחש “so that He will remove the snake (plague of) from us.” Actually, we would have expected the word הנחשים, “the snakes” (pl.), instead of the word הנחש, “snake” (sing.). The reason the Torah uses the singular is to allude to the lethal power of the snake, serpent, mentioned earlier. The Torah refers to the spiritual representative of the snakes whose residence is in the desert. When the Jewish people said מעלינו, instead of ממנו, they meant “the one who is above us,” instead of merely “away from us.” We find a similar expression in Numbers 14,9 where Calev described that the protective force of the Canaanites had already been withdrawn from them as: סר צלם מעליהם, “their protective shadow has departed from above them.” This will also enable you to understand a verse in Zecharyah 6,1 וההרים הרי נחשת, “and the mountains are mountains made of copper” [a comment which appears irrelevant at first glance. Ed.]. The word נחשת is understood as derived from השחתה, “destruction.” Although the mountains mentioned by the prophet are destructible, the four chariots representing the glory of the Lord mentioned in that same verse are indestructible (based on Maimonides Moreh Nevuchim section two 10th chapter). It is a reference to the “great mountain” which features in the vision of Zerubabel as an insurmountable obstacle but which G’d promises will be reduced to level ground (vision of Yehoshua High Priest, Zecharyah 4,7)

עשה לך שרף, “construct for yourself a type of snake called seraph.” In response to this instruction the Torah writes that instead of a seraph, Moses made a נחש נחשת, “a snake of copper.” Moses had understood that what G’d had in mind was that he should make a snake of copper. He did not mean to countermand G’d’s instruction. G’d had refrained from referring to this snake by its proper name so as not to mention the creature (original serpent) by name which had brought mortality into the world. By speaking of seraph, G’d referred only to the adjective associated with the serpent, the result of its bite. When G’d added the word לך, i.e. that Moses should make the seraph for himself, instead of saying simply: make a seraph,” He meant that He had accepted Moses’ prayer on behalf of the people to the extent that He forgave them their trespass against Himself; however Moses had to do something for himself in order for the people’s insult against him, Moses, to be forgiven, in order to demonstrate to the people how seriously G’d takes an insult against His chosen instrument, i.e. Moses.

והביט אל נחש הנחשת וחי, “if he looked up to the copper snake he would live.” The cure was the opposite of the natural process. If the person who had been bitten would look at the snake which bit him he would endanger himself. [The author explains the cure in the same way as the working of inoculation, i.e. injection of the ingredient causing the disease, except that when we use inoculation this is done before the disease has struck. Ed.]. King Chizkiyah (Kings II 20,7) was cured by applying dried figs to the area infected by boils (a procedure which normally intensifies the skin rash he suffered from); the bitter waters at Marah (Exodus 15,25 compare Mechilta) were sweetened by throwing bitter (not sweet) wood into it. Here too, instead of an antidote to the snake and what it looks like the people had to look at an even more deadly looking snake. Red copper, the material Moses’ snake was made of symbolizes the planet Mars associated with war and death. In this instance by looking at “death” the people were cured. In other words, there occurred what our sages describe as “a miracle within a miracle.” It is a well known fact that if someone who has been bitten by a rabid dog subsequently looks into water and sees a reflection of a dog he will surely die. The Talmud Yuma 84 also discusses antidotes for bites by a rabid dog including the need to drink water only from copper vessels. The danger continues for 12 months during which time an appearance of the reflection of the dog may be lethal to the victim of the bite. Physicians warn people not even to mention the word “dog” or “rabid dog” to the victim of such a bite as it brings to mind associations which may prove fatal for the victim. Such people have been known to imagine seeing the image of such a dog even in their urine. At any rate, the reason we mention this is to demonstrate that here the requirement to look at the very symbol of what bit them had therapeutic effects for the victims instead of the reverse. This demonstrates the magnitude of the miracle. G’d’s purpose in commanding Moses to make a snake and for the people to focus on it was to show them that it was not the snake that causes death but the sin (compare Berachot 33).

ויסעו בני ישראל ויחנו באובות, “The Children of Israel journeyed and camped at Ovot.” Tanchuma Chukat 19 proceeds to comment on the significance of these various way-stations mentioned in the verses following, seeing in each of them an allusion to what occurred there. The word אובות is related to אויב, “enemy,” i.e. that the people still suffered from a display of G’d’s anger at that place. The next location mentioned, i.e. עיי העברים, is an allusion to anger, עברה, i.e. G‘d remained angry at the people for 38 years. The name “river זרד,” which is mentioned next as a resting place, is understood to describe such a narrow body of water (זרת, the distance from thumb to the little finger when the hand is extended) that the idea that it took 38 years before the people could cross it was also a source of frustration for them. Moses repeated this theme in Deut. 2,13 where he recalls that G’d finally gave the instruction to the people to cross this “river.” The point is reinforced when the Torah writes in Deut. 2,14 that it took 38 years for the people to travel the distance from Kadesh Barnea to the river zered. When the Torah continues in verse 13 of our chapter to describe that משם נסעו ויחנו מעבר ארנון, “from there they journeyed and camped “beyond” Arnon, the word מעבר is understood by Tanchuma as signifying that finally G’d’s anger at the people i.e. עברה, had passed and they were in G’d’s good graces again. The normal construction in that verse should have been ויחנו ב-עבר ארנון, “they camped on the far side of the river Arnon.” The change from בעבר, to מעבר gave rise to the Midrash’s insight on that verse. We find that immediately after the people crossed the river Arnon G’d addressed Moses once again. [There had been a silence of verbal communication from G’d ever since the decree that the generation of the spies had to die. Ed.]. (Compare Deut. 2,24, that G’d spoke to Moses immediately after the people reached the river Arnon).

על כן יאמר בספר מלחמות ה', “therefore it is said in the Book of the wars of Hashem.” The verse refers to the encampment and the miracles which took place at that place. The words: “in the Book of the wars of the Lord,” is a separate verse not connected to that which preceded it. It is a reference to a Book in which the Israelites had recorded all the wars G’d fought on behalf of those who revere Him. It is entirely possible that this Book as well as many others were lost in the course of our long history and wanderings. The Book’s first entry may well have been Avraham’s campaign to rescue his nephew Lot (Genesis 14,14-24). It is likely that the "Prophecies of Nathan and Ido" (II Chronicles 9,29) and the "Chronicles of the Jewish kings" (II Kings 15,11) and the "songs and parables of King Solomon" (I Kings 5,12) are further examples of historical records which have been lost in the course of time. This is the view of Ibn Ezra on Kings I 5,12.

אז ישיר ישראל את השירה הזאת, “Then Israel sang this song:” According to the plain meaning of the text the principal content of this song is the reference to the Emorites who drowned in the river Arnon and whose blood mingled with the waters from the well which accompanied the Israelites on their journeys (compare Rashi). This might account for the mention of ואת והב בסופה ואת הנחלים ארנון, “and the gift of [the Sea of Reeds and the rivers of Arnon”] (verse 14). Personally, I believe the meaning of the verse is that what occurred there was also recorded in the Book of the wars G’d fought on behalf of the Israelites, and the word בספר in verse 14 does not mean “book” so much as “enumeration;” i.e. this “war” which the Israelites only learned about after they saw all the blood in the river Arnon was accounted another one of the wars recorded for posterity. G’d had destroyed a town known as והב by means of a tornado or something like it, סופה being a reference to a great storm. The tributaries of the river Arnon were also destroyed by that storm. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Chukat 20: the words את והב בסופה mean “what He had given to them (the miracles G’d performed, i.e. the assistance He had given) at the Sea of Reeds.” The words ואת הנחלים ארנון mean “and the rivers and the miracles He performed for them at the river Arnon and its tributaries.” What precisely were the miracles performed at Arnon? Answer: אשד נחלים “so much blood was poured into these rivers that they looked red.” Onkelos uses the word שפך here for the spilling of the blood of the Emorites, a similar expression he used in Leviticus 4,12 on the words אל שפך הדשן, which he renders as מישד קיטמא, a place for shedding blood. The background to all this is the tradition that the Emorites were hiding in the clefts of these high rocks on either side of the river Arnon. The river was narrow but deep, its banks forming a deep canyon. The opposite sides of the rocks were so close together that people on one side could converse with those on the opposite side. However, the only way they could get across to one another was by first descending to the river and then climbing the cliffs on the opposite bank. The Emorites planned to exploit this phenomenon to ambush the Israelites when the latter would attempt to cross the river by bombarding them from above with a hail of all kinds of missives, rocks, burning torches, etc. G’d brought about a storm or earthquake which banged together the two opposing sides of these cliffs squashing he Emorites who had been hiding inside them. The blood of these people drenched the river so that the Israelites did not even become aware of their miraculous escape until hey saw that the river had become red with blood. This was the comparison with what happened at the Sea of Reeds that our verses alluded to in poetical form. The words אשר נטה, “when it veered,” in verse 15, describes the motion of the cliff in the opposite direction toward Moav during this happening. The cliff then stuck to its opposite number across the river.

ומשם בארה, “and from there to the well;” from there (the river Arnon) the stream of blood flowed all the way to the well which was the source of drinking water for the Israelites. When the people realized their miraculous escape upon seeing this blood, they immediately composed the song of thanksgiving described in verses 17-20.

באר חפרוה שרים, “a well dug by princes.” A reference to Moses and Aaron. The reason the Torah calls them by the title שרים and נדיבי העם, is because they used their staffs to dig the well. Seeing that the Torah (or the authors of the words of the song) equated Moses and Aaron by referring to them by the same titles, the Torah had to add the word במחקק, “through a lawgiver” (sing.) to teach us that after the death of Miriam the well became reactivated only through the merit of the lawgiver, i.e. Moses.

וממדבר מתנה, “and from a desert, an inhospitable place to a great gift.” The gift of the well was considered an historic gift. From there the people proceeded to the rivers and tributaries of Arnon where the great miracle we just described took place. All the words of the song relate in one form or another to acts of kindness G’d performed for His people. From the rivers of Arnon the people traveled to Bamot, the land of the mighty Kings Sichon and Og who qualified for such a title. From the Bamot Hagay as far as the field of Moav there was no other river that could have provided water for them except the well of Miriam/Moses.

A Midrashic approach: The introductory words אז ישיר ישראל את השירה הזאת, “then Israel sang this song,” appear deficient. Surely we would have expected the additional words: “to the Lord” as we have in Exodus 15,1 where Moses composed the song. The appropriate wording would have mentioned first the name of G’d and afterwards the name of Moses or it should have described Moses as the composer of this song also. The reason this was not done was that this very well was the cause of Moses having to abort his mission of leading the people to the Holy Land, the reason he had to die and be buried on foreign soil. It would therefore not have been fitting to mention his name in a song of thanksgiving for that well. Since Moses is not mentioned, G-d's name is omitted as well in deference to Moses. We can understand this by means of a parable: A king was invited to a festive meal somewhere. He responded to the invitation by saying that he would only attend if a certain friend of his would be there also.

וממתנה נחליאל, ומנחליאל במות, “from Matanah to Nachaliel, and from Nachaliel to Bamot.” Rabbi Yehudah (Midrash Tehillim 5) said that the Jewish people merited receiving the Torah as a result of their being in the desert (last word in verse 18). Unfortunately, at Matanah [the very site where they received this gift. Ed.] they acquired idolatry by saying: “these are your gods O Israel, etc.” (Exodus 32,4). The word מתנה referred to Moses giving the Torah to Israel (Exodus 31,18). The same Rabbi Yehudah reads the word במות not as “heights,” but as ב-מות, death; i.e. after having received the Torah (נחליאל a heritage from G’d) they became subject to death for violating this gift, this heritage, i.e. the Torah. He quotes Numbers 14,35: “in this desert they shall perish, they will die.” The words ובמות הגיא he understands as a reference to Moses having to die in the valley (compare Deut. 34,6: “He buried him there in the valley”).

A different Midrashic approach to the allusions contained in this song of the Israelites involving their well: The words וממדבר מתנה imply that when a person abandons himself totally to the toil of studying Torah, i.e. he is as devoid of other claims upon him as is a desert, then the Torah (insights) will be granted to him as a gift, מתנה. Seeing that Torah was given to such a Jew as a gift, נחל אל,”a G’d given inheritance,” as we know from the word נחליאל, he will ascend to spiritual greatness במות, heights. Should he allow this to fill him with pride, arrogance, G’d will bring him down from such eminence, i.e. ומבמות הגיא, “and from lofty heights down to the valley.” If he will learn the lesson to become humble, G’d will elevate him once again, i.e. כל גיא ינשא, “every valley (humble person) will become elevated.”

A kabbalistic approach to this paragraph (song). The song just as the prayer draws celestial lofty thoughts and preoccupation earthward into our domain. Seeing that this is so both the individual as well as the community who recite such songs in praise of the Lord will draw G’d’s blessings down to earth.

Remember that the numerical value of the word שירה is the same as that of תפלה, i.e. 515. Both words appear in the same verse and are compared to one another, to wit: יומם יצוה ה' חסדו ובלילה שירה, עמי תפלה לאל חי, ”By day may the Lord vouchsafe His fanciful care, so that at night a song to Him may be with me, a prayer to G’d my life” (Psalms 42,9). In this verse the psalmist speaks of שירה, (noun) when in fact he should have spoken of שירו, an imperative of the verb “to sing.” When the Torah writes in our paragraph that the Israelites sang את השירה הזאת, you are already aware of the meaning of the word זאת, that in kabbalistic terms it is a reference to the emanation מלכות, the link between the עולם העשיה, our terrestrial world and the next higher kind of “world” the emanation יסוד, lowest level of the עולם היצירה. The terrestrial world we live in is directly “inspired,” נאצלת, from this emanation known as מלכות or זאת. The mystical dimension of Lamentations 2,19: קומי רני בלילה לראש אשמורות שפכי כמים לבך, is that the prophet does not speak of בראש אשמורות, which would mean that the supplication discussed in that verse takes place during the early part of morning, but he said לראש אשמורות, “to the head of these watches of the night”. The speaker addresses celestial forces of the emanations. He appeals to the ראש, the head, i.e. the highest of these forces, the tenth emanation, to Hashem Himself. In the song offered by the people of Israel here, the words עלי באר ענו לה are also an appeal in the first instance to the באר, the well, the lowest of the emanations. By saying עלי באר, they encourage that force to rise up to the highest emanation, the source of all blessing whence their prayers will be answered, i.e. ענו לה. The reason they called the emanation זאת or מלכות by the name באר, well, is that a well collects water, the essence of all blessings on earth. This lowest emanation is the receptacle of G’d’s outpourings of blessing. The simile of באר as a vessel collecting G’d’s bounty recurs again and again in the Sefer Habahir of Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah. In his book the terms באר and כסא represent the lowest and the highest (כתר) emanations respectively. [The author proceeds to trace the journey of such prayers (songs) through the various emanations until they reach the highest emanation as represented by similes in our text. I have contented myself with providing you, the reader, with an outline of his approach. Ed.]

כי עז גבול בני עמון, ”for the border (territory) of the Children of Bney Ammon was powerful.” The verse is a simile. It is a reference to G’d’s instructions to the Israelites not to harass either the Bney Ammon or the Moabites (Deut. 2,19). This instruction made the territory of the Bney Ammon inviolate against any assault by the army of the Israelites. When the Torah mentions in verse 26 that Cheshbon was the capital of Sichon who had conquered it from the first king of Moav, this indicates that the reason Israel was allowed to conquer the lands of Sichon was that it was not included in the part of the territory concerning which G’d had warned the Israelites. This is also the meaning of the somewhat enigmatic statement in Chulin 60 עמון ומואב טהרו בסיחון, that “Ammon and Moav were purified through Sichon.” The conquest by Sichon of some of their territories invalidated the injunction to the Jewish people not to harass them. If the Torah saw fit to mention poetry by the local Emorites (verse 28) in which the victory over Moav is celebrated, our sages have reported to us details of the bravery and mighty deeds of Sichon and the power of the city Cheshbon by saying that even if Chesbon had been filled with only flies no ordinary army could have conquered it. They added that even if Sichon had been in the valley (without the added advantage of being on a mountain) no one could have overcome him (Tanchuma Chukat 23). They claim that even his name Sichon meant that his personal strength was tabletalk all over the country (the word סיחון sounding like שיחה). They deduce from the fact that the Torah makes special mention of the Israelites also killing Sichon’s son, [something which is included in the statement that no one escaped. Ed.] that this son was a mighty warrior in his own right already at that time. Possibly this is deduced from the fact that in Deut. 2,32 the Torah writes בנו instead of בניו as here when describing the fate of Sichon’s sons (son). According to Bamidbar Rabbah 19,29 although both Og and Sichon were Emorites they were so sure of themselves that they did not come to each other’s assistance in their fight against Israel. According to Tanchuma end of Chukat, Sichon’s son was even tougher than his father.

על כן אמרו המושלים, “this is what prompted the poets to say, etc.” According Ibn Ezra this is a reference to Bileam and Be-or his father, seeing both of them made pronouncements regarding future events in poetic language. According to Tanchuma Chukat 24, when Sichon at the time had been unable to conquer Cheshbon he had called on the services of Bileam to curse the inhabitants. This is why Balak had said to him (via his messengers): ”for I know if you curse someone he will be cursed” (Numbers 22,6). תבנה ותכונן, “let it be built and firmly established.” They meant that it would serve Sichon as his capital.

Our sages in Baba Batra 78 see in the word מושלים a reference to people who have control of their evil urges, people who weigh the loss they would sustain by failing to carry out certain commandments in order to garner profit in this terrestrial world. They interpret the words תבנה ותכונן to mean that such people will be built up in this world and will acquire a firm footing in the hereafter as the result of their way of life. In the words עיר סיחון they see an allusion to the עיר - a donkey, and explain that if a person fashions himself like this young donkey (עיר) that follows after pleasant talk (סיחה), i.e., if one is easily tempted to listen to his inclination, then תצא אש מחשבון a fire will go out from those who calculate the effect of their deeds in the world, and will consume those who do not calculate and examine their ways but instead do as they please. The word להבה, “flame,” is a continuation of the previous thought, i.e. from the city of Sichon, a city symbolizing the righteous, flames will come forth devouring Moav, i.e. people who exercise no restraint over their biological urges. The words בעלי במות ארנון are understood by the Talmud there to mean “the arrogant ones.” The word ונירם (beginning of verse 30) is understood as paraphrasing the wicked who deny the existence of an all-seeing power in heaven, i.e. אין רם. Such people claim אבד חשבון, “there is no accounting to be rendered for the way we behave while alive on earth.” The words עד מידבא, describe the response by G’d to people who question the success of the wicked in this terrestrial world. The answer is that G’d has to reward them for the good they did before He can destroy their souls and deny them the hereafter [literally until they will be lost forever. Ed.].

כי אש יצאה מחשבון, ”for a fire has come forth from Cheshbon.” This is an allusion to Moabites who had dwelled in Chesbon and commenced a revolution against the local king.

אכלה ער מואב, “it consumed Ar of Moav.” Ar is the name of a place in Moab, just as (Ruth 1,1) מבית לחם יהודה is the name of a place within Judah.

אוי לך מואב, “woe unto you Moav (the people)!” He cursed it that it should fall into the hands of Sichon. כמוש, a reference to the favorite god of the Moabites. נתן בניו, this is an appeal to the power that be to make fugitives and prisoners out of the Moabites (part of Bileam’s curse at the time). Alternatively, the words may refer to Kemosh, Moav’s deity. The verse would then tell us that the people of Moav who served the deity Kemosh, built altars for it and had more faith in that deity than any other nation (as we know from Isaiah 16,12), paid the price for their misplaced faith, and the poet writing these lines ridicules the people for having put their trust in that deity. Their deity is the reason that the believers now have to either flee or become prisoners. Malachi 2,11 speaks about the worshippers of idols as his sons and daughters. This is the way Nachmanides explains our verse.

ונירם, “When we overthrew them.” Moses describes that as soon as we overthrew the Emorites in Cheshbon and thereabouts the country was lost, first as far as from Chesbon to Divon, eventually destroying whole country including Nofach-Meydva. Alternatively, ונירם is from the root ניר meaning "their kingdom", i.e. the kingdom of Cheshbon was lost.

אל תירא אותו, “do not fear him!” Since it was not appropriate for Moses to be in awe and trepidation of any human being seeing he always had the power of the Shechinah at his side, why did G’d have to tell him not to be afraid of Og? Do we not have the prophet telling even lesser individuals than Moses “who are you (Israel) that you should be afraid of mortal man?” (Isaiah 51,12). The prophet means that if the righteous display (or feel) fear of mortal man this undermines the well-being of his soul, his personality. Even Moses personally warns the people in Deut. 1,29 and 31,6 not to be afraid of the Canaanites. The reason Moses did fear Og was because he had earned some merits when he told Avraham of Lot’s being captured. [The fact that this man had survived all these years plus at least 300 years prior to Avraham when he rode out the deluge on the roof of the ark, made Moses worry (compare Niddah 61)]. Seeing we have a tradition that Og and Sichon were brothers, why was Moses afraid of Og whereas he is not reported as being afraid of Sichon? [G’d’s telling Moses not to be afraid of Og makes it clear that he must have been afraid]. Og’s longevity and size made Moses wonder if his merits had been used up. This is why he was afraid and needed reassurance.

Some of our sages do not agree that this Og was the same as the one who had told Avraham about Lot being captured. However, even this Og was a descendant of the person described as the פליט in Genesis 14.13. Moses was still afraid that this Og should not still be a beneficiary of merits accumulated by his ancestor. If the sages describe Og and Sichon as brothers and they mean “biological brothers sharing the same father and mother,” Moses should have been afraid of both of them as the merit of their ancestor would protect both of them. We must assume therefore that they were half-brothers sharing only the same mother so that Sichon who was not fathered by a direct descendant of the original Og would not be able to count on the merit from the original Og. At any rate, we have only one authentic source concerning the genealogy of this Og, our sages, i.e. that we are dealing with the original Og.

A glance at Tanchuma Chukat 25 will show you that Moses erred in believing that Og’s telling Avraham of Lot’s capture had been a meritorious deed. On the contrary, Og’s intention had been to involve Avraham in a war he could not possibly win and that when he would be killed Og would claim Sarah as his wife. G’d allowed Og to live this long, i.e. He rewarded him for the effort he had made with his feet to inform Avraham. He punished him for the evil intent he harboured when telling Avraham by killing him through Avraham’s descendants. He who had meant for Avraham to be killed was killed by one of Avraham’s descendants. The punishment was fitted to the crime. Moses’ original concern was that seeing he was only 120 years old, how was he going to defeat a man who had already lived over 500 years! [I make this over 800 years seeing the deluge occurred in 1656 and the Israelites left Egypt in 2448 and another 40 years had passed since. Ed.] G’d answered Moses not only not to be afraid of Og but that Moses would slay him with his own hands. This is the meaning of: “I have delivered him into your hand and you will do unto him just as you have done to Sichon.” Thus far Tanchuma.

The problem with this Midrash is that seeing that Sichon and Og were brothers and only Og had survived the deluge and we have a tradition that only eight people survived the deluge, i.e. Noach, his three sons and his wife and their respective wives, where did Sichon originate? How could he have been a brother of an antediluvian Og?

I have found a Midrash that both Og and Sichon were sons of Mechazael, who was one of the people described in Genesis 6,2 as בני האלו-הים (compare Niddah 61). According to this Midrash Mechazael had sexual relations with the wife of Cham shortly before they entered the ark and Sichon was born while Noach and family were in the ark. This would explain why Cham had intercourse with his wife while in the ark (although it had been forbidden) so as to clear his wife from suspicion of infidelity. [This does not solve the problem of Og being the ninth survivor of the deluge, something which contradicts other Midrashim. Ed.] According to the opinion of our sages that Og and Sichon were biological brothers we must assume that Sichon was also extraordinarily old at that time. G’d had a special reason why He granted both these individuals such a long life. Who can fathom what G’d had had in mind? We are told in Berachot 54 that Moses who was 10 cubits tall (one cubit taller than Og) took a ten cubit-long axe and jumped ten cubits into the air and killed Og with it. The wording in the Talmud appears to be an allusion to Moses having countered the merit of Og and the reward he had received for making an effort with his feet at the time when he informed Avraham of Lot’s capture. The author credits his teacher the Rashba with the following aggadic explanation: The Talmud writes this passage (in Berachot) only so that we should not think that Moses’ fear of Og concerned Og’s physique, his prowess as a warrior. Enjoying G’d’s grace is totally independent of one’s physique and physical strength. G’d relates to people in relation to the merits they have accumulated. We have this on the authority of Psalms 147, 10-11: “He does not prize the strength of horses, nor value the fleetness of men; but the Lord values those who fear Him, those who depend on His faithful care.”