Pisqa’ 3¹

1

“After he attacked Sihon, king of the Amorites . . .

Moses began to explain this Torah, saying . . .” (Dt.1:4-5).

There is an analogy²—

a king accompanied his troops into the wilderness.

His troops said:

give us fine, hot loaves!

He replied: I’ll give!

Returning, the soldiers repeated:

give us fine, hot loaves!

Said his officer to them:

since the king is skilled,

[you don’t first wonder:]

where will he get millstones?

Where will he get ovens in the wilderness?

Thus did Moses say:

if I rebuke Israel beforehand, they will say of me—

he rebukes us now because he has no strength

to bring us into the Land

and to defeat Sihon and Og.

But this is not what Moses did!

Rather, only after he brought them into the Land

and defeated Sihon and Og,

did he rebuke them.

Thus it is said:

“After he attacked Sihon, king of the Amorites . . .

Moses began to explain this Torah, saying . . .” (Dt.1:4-5)

2

“Who lives in Heshbon” (Dt.1:4).

Were Sihon [himself] not mighty,

yet ensconced in [mighty] Heshbon,

he would have still been mighty,

for the province was mighty.

And were the province not mighty,

yet Sihon had been ensconced in it,

it would have still been mighty,

for its king was mighty.

All the more so

when the king is mighty

and the province is mighty,

[is the province difficult to defeat]!

“And Og, king of Bashan” (Dt.1:4).

Were Og not mighty,

yet ensconced in [prolific] Ashtaroth,³

he would have still been mighty.

And were the province not mighty,

yet Og had been [ensconced] in it,

it would have still been mighty,

for its king was mighty.

All the more so

[is a province difficult to defeat]

when the king is mighty

and the province is mighty!

3

“Who dwelt at Ashtaroth” (Dt.1:4)—

indicating that the city was mighty [prolific].⁴

“Ashtaroth at Edrei”⁵ (Dt.1:4)—

this indicates that it was the center of government.

1. H:30-31; JN1:28-29
2. Most commentators agree that the text of the analogy is flawed (see the emendations of RH ad loc.) I translate the text supplied by F:11, n.5, which differs little from the texts of Pardo and TA. Pardo decodes the characters allegorically as follows: the king represents God, the troops are Israel, the officer is Moses, the loaves are the manna. The parable portrays the reluctance of Moses to rebuke Israel, lest they assume that Moses is setting them up for disappointment., should the land prove impregnable. Rashi ad Dt.1:4 paraphrases the allegory but does not cite the text.
3. Rashi ad Dt.1:4 explains Ashtoroth “as a mountainous, difficult terrain.”
4. Heb: qasheh, “hard,” “difficult.” Ashtaroth stems from the name of the goddess, Ishtar, known for her fecundity.
5. ‘Edra`ei is etymologically linked to the Aramaic, d-r-` (“arm”), and thus to political power as well as fecundity (zer`a). Cf. Pisqa’ 37.3.