After the crushing defeat of Sichon and Og, Israel seems invincible. Out of the disorder caused by these conquests, Balak son of Tzippor emerges as the leader of Moav, east of the Dead Sea. Moav and Midian put aside their ancient enmity and unite against their common threat, Israel. But conventional means will not work against them, and the sorcerer/prophet Bil’am son of Be’or of Petor is summoned to cast a curse on Israel.

And Balak son of Tzippor saw all that Israel had done to the Emorite. And Moav was very terrified of the people, because it was numerous. And Moav despaired before the Children of Israel. And Moav said to the elders of Midian, “Now the congregation will lick up (YELACHACHU) all our surroundings, like the ox licks (KILCHOCH HA’SHOR) the vegetation of the field.” And Balak son of Tzippor was king to Moav at that time (Bamidbar 22:2-4).

It is characteristic of Moav to use a vivid image borrowed from cattle, because Moav was known for its herds (see Melachim II 3:4). But, what does Moav mean by this comparison to an ox licking up greenery? How does it express their anxiety, and what does it suggest about their plan of action?

The verb LAMED-CHET-CHAF connotes utter destruction by lapping up (cf. Melachim I 18:38, Yeshayahu 49:23, Michah 7:17, Tehillim 72:9). Ibn Ezra observes that there are two different grammatical structures used here: YELACHACHU is in the intensive case (Pi’el), while KILCHOCH is the simple case (Pa’al). This is reflected in the Targum Onkelos, who translates YELACHACHU as “destroy” and KILCHOCH as “lick.”

Rashi, based on Midrash Tanchuma, explains that Israel’s destruction is as irreversible as an ox’s:
“Anything that the ox licks up has no blessing.”
One explanation for this is that after an ox grazes, the grass does not grow again. Unlike other herbivores, the ox has no upper teeth, so its powerful tongue latches on to the grass and pulls it up by the roots. Akeidat Yitzchak (R. Yitzchak ben-Moshe Arama, c. 1420-1494) writes:
“All my life I have wearied myself with this simile, until I observed cows grazing in the meadow, and I understood its intent: It is the way of an ox to stick out its tongue to the side, lengthening it to its full extent. Then it moves it sideways around its mouth. Then with the tongue’s papillae which are like a sickle it uproots all vegetation in its path and brings it into its mouth.”

Abravanel (Don Yitzchak Abravanel, 1437-1508) says that the ox’s saliva is destructive, an idea adopted from Shabbat 140b. Another interpretation of that Talmudic passage says that the slime left behind by the ox makes any remaining grass wholly unappetizing to other animals.

Is Moav afraid that Israel will conquer them?

Perhaps not. Malbim says simply that Israel is ruining the pasture land. Similarly, Akeidat Yitzchak writes:
“[Moav] meant that even if they would be assured that [Israel] would not provoke them, nevertheless they should be afraid that what happens to the area around an ox’s mouth will happen to their surroundings.”
Accordingly, Moav’s concern is environmental and economic.

Ohr HaChaim (R. Chaim ben Moshe ibn-Attar, 1696-1743) suggests that Moav tries not to let on that it is fainthearted, but rather expresses worry for the surrounding nations. Ramban provides further analysis:
“And behold Moav knew that Israel would not capture their land from them, because they sent to them as they had sent to Sichon, “Until I will have crossed the Jordan to the land that Hashem, our G-d, gives us” (Devarim 2:29). Or they also heard Hashem’s prohibition when He said to them, “Do not discomfit Moav” (ibid, verse 9). Therefore, they said to the elders of Midian that even if they do not capture our land, they “will lick up” by sheer number “all our surroundings, like the ox licks the vegetation of the field.” They will capture all our surroundings as they did to the two Emorite kings, and they will make us “as servants to do task work” (Yehoshua 16:10).
This interpretation would make Moav’s concern political and military, as it would be rendered isolated by Israel’s conquests.

Some commentaries, however, say that Moav felt directly threatened by the Israelite juggernaut. Unlike Ramban, Abravanel explains:
“[Moav] means to say, ‘It is fitting for you, the neighboring lands, to aid us in getting rid of this nation. If they come all at once “the congregation” Israel “will lick up” not only us but also “all” the nations that surround us, “like the ox licks the vegetation of the field,” meaning that there is none to prevent it from doing as it wills.’”

Finally, the Midrash Tanchuma that was Rashi’s source suggests a metaphysical threat.
“Just as an ox’s power is in its mouth, so is their power in their mouth. …And just as an ox gores with its horns, so do they strike with their prayer.”
Abravanel explains:
“This indicates that Israel won their wars through prayer, not by power or through natural means. And thus he asked Bil’am to curse them, for his power too was in his mouth.”

Perhaps Moav felt that in a fight against an animal-like foe, only enchantment (like snake charming) would work. Therefore, Bil’am sacrifices bulls and rams (see 23:1-4, 14-15, and 29-30) in order to overcome Israel.

But Hashem turns the tables, converting Bil’am’s spells into blessings that articulate Israel’s raw animal power:

• … his is the power of the wild ox (an alternative interpretation of 23:22, 24:8).
• Behold, a nation that shall rise up like a lioness, and like a lion it shall lift himself up; he shall not lie down until he eats prey, and the blood of the slain shall he drink (23:24; compare this to Yaakov’s blessing to Yehudah, Bereishit 49:9).
• He crouched, he lay down like a lion and like a lioness. Who shall raise him? (24:9).

Due to Hashem’s protection of Israel, Balak has good reason to fear.