Balak 5774: Lot's Daughters

“And Moav was very frightened of the people because they were numerous.” (Bamidbar/Numbers 22:3)

Moav and Ammon are protected nations. Because of the two great women who descend from them, Ruth and Naamah (wife of King Shlomo/Solomon) respectively, Torah forbids attacking them. However, there is a difference between the two nations.

With respect to Ammon, the Jewish people are not allowed to strike a hostile posture or appear belligerent. However, when it comes to Moav, the Jewish people are allowed to threaten and be belligerent as long as we don’t engage in outright hostility. Yelling and brandishing swords is acceptable; shooting is impermissible. This explains why Moav is “frightened of the people.”

Why does Torah differentiate between Moav and Ammon?

Rabbi Yissocher Frand in Rabbi Frand on the Parasha explains that the difference dates back to the circumstances of the birth of the nations’ founders. (The explanation is found in the Talmud in Bava Kama 38b.) After Sodom is destroyed, Lot’s daughters think that they and their father are the only people left on earth. They believe that they have to bear children by their father in order to save the human race from extinction.

“And Lot’s two daughters conceived from their father. And the elder bore a son, and she named him Moav; he is the father of Moav until this day. And the younger, she, too, bore a son, and she named him Ben-Ami; he is the father of the children of Ammon until this day.” (Bereishit 19: 36-38).

The name Moav means “from my father”. In giving her son this name, the oldest daughter advertises her incestuous relationship with her father. The other daughter names her son Ben-Ami, meaning “son of my people” or “son of my nation”.  With this name, she makes no mention of her child’s illegitimacy. We are permitted to harass the nation that emerged from the Moavite birth that advertises incest, while we are forbidden to disturb Ammon with even a hint of belligerence.

Rabbi Frand explains: “The Zohar (Jewish mysticism) states that ‘chutzpah (brazenness) begets chutzpah’.  The older daughter was immodest and bold; she took an aggressive posture. Therefore, we are allowed to take an aggressive posture toward her descendants. The younger daughter was modest and discreet, the opposite of aggressive. Therefore, we are forbidden to be aggressive toward her descendants.”

Rabbi Frand notes that shame no longer exists in contemporary society. In the past, people who had shortcomings and failures did not advertise them and were not proud of their mistakes and poor behavior. They tended to hide what they did and lied about it instead of admitting it. Today, there are reality shows and celebrity gossip in which people are open and honest about their foibles and are unashamed to tell all. Should shame be a relic of the past? The long-term ramifications of the actions of Lot’s daughters show that shame, modesty and discretion still matter.