לקוטי שיחות חלק ח׳ - בלק א

At the beginning of the parshah, Rashi cites the entire first verse and comments:

“He said: ‘These two kings upon whom we relied could not stand before them; we certainly will not be able to stand before them.’ Therefore, Moav became afraid.”

The commentators explain that Rashi is teaching that “Moav became afraid” is a continuation of “Balak son of Tzippor saw all that Israel had done to the Emorites.” Balak saw that “these two kings upon whom we relied” had been defeated, and therefore “Moav became afraid.”

At first glance, however, this seems difficult. What is Rashi adding? If “Balak saw” is an independent matter that did not lead to Moav’s fear, then the verse appears unnecessary. Why would the Torah tell us that Balak saw something if his seeing had no consequence?

Another question: What is the source in the simple meaning of the text for Rashi’s statement that “we relied upon them”—that Moav depended upon Sichon and Og for protection?

The explanation is that the verse itself states that “Moav became afraid because the people were numerous.” This seems to indicate that their fear stemmed from Israel’s great numbers, not from Israel’s victories over the Emorites.

One could therefore argue that there were actually two separate matters: the Moabites feared Israel because of their large population, but they could do nothing because their king was not afraid. Only later, after the king himself became fearful because of what Israel had done to the Emorites, could the people openly express their own fear.

Rashi rejects this interpretation.

However, according to Rashi’s approach another difficulty arises. If “Moav became afraid” is indeed a continuation of the previous verse, why does the Torah not say “Moav saw” rather than “Balak saw”?

To answer this, Rashi continues:

“These two kings upon whom we relied...”

Moav’s dependence upon Sichon and Og was a confidential political reality known only to the king. Therefore the Torah says “Balak saw.” But after Balak witnessed the defeat of these two kings, he informed his people that their trusted protectors had fallen. As a result, Moav became afraid.

The expression “the two kings upon whom we relied” also explains why Moav did not become frightened immediately after the defeat of Sichon. Even after one king fell, they still had another powerful ruler in whom to place their trust. Only after the defeat of Og as well did all their confidence disappear.

Yet another question arises. From the words “we certainly all the more so” it appears that the fear comes from a logical inference about Israel’s military might, not from the fact that they had relied on these kings. If the issue is simply that their protectors were gone, no kal vachomer is needed.

The explanation is as follows:

Why was Moav afraid at all? The Jewish people had deliberately bypassed Moav and showed no intention of attacking them. If so, why were they frightened?

Moav assumed that Israel avoided fighting them because Israel feared Sichon and therefore chose not to provoke conflict in the region. Once they saw that Israel had decisively defeated both Sichon and Og, they realized that Israel’s restraint was not due to weakness or fear. On the contrary, Israel possessed extraordinary strength and had simply chosen not to attack. It was then that Moav became afraid of Israel’s power.

Balak’s conduct also illustrates the principle that the wicked are controlled by their hearts. Although publicizing his fears served no practical purpose, he nevertheless shared them with his people.

Moshe Rabbeinu, by contrast, feared Og in his heart, yet he did not allow that fear to frighten the Jewish people. He kept his concern to himself and did not weaken the nation’s confidence.

The Inner Dimension of Torah

This is connected to Yud-Beis Tammuz. Although the Previous Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, acknowledged that he felt apprehension during the events of 5687 (1927), nevertheless before his arrest and throughout his imprisonment he mastered that fear and refused to be intimidated. He would not allow the honor and pride of the Jewish people to be trampled. Even while facing danger, he projected strength, faith, and unwavering commitment to Torah and Yiddishkeit.