וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמֻּכָּה הַמִּדְיָנִית כָּזְבִּי בַת צוּר רֹאשׁ אֻמּוֹת בֵּית אָב בְּמִדְיָן הוּא: (במדבר כה:טו)
“And the name of the Midianite woman who was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Tzur, a national leader of a paternal house in Midian,” (Bamidbar 25:15).
Rashi asks that in this pasuk, “Tzur is referred to as ‘a national leader’ which implies that he was the most prominent leader in Midian.” However, in Parshas Matos (Bamidbar 31:8), the Torah lists the leaders of Midian and Tzur is listed only third (“And they killed the Midianite kings… Evi, Rekem, Tzur, Chur and Reba, the five kings of Midian … ”). This implies that Evi and Rekem were more important than him. Rashi explains that he fell to the third position because he degraded himself by abandoning his daughter to shameful behavior.
Zera Shimshon asks that Rashi’s explanation implies that Tzur retained his position as the leader of the nation, despite that his shameful action and his bad conduct resulted in him being only third in the list. Zera Shimshon asks: Why would this listing order concern Tzur?
Whether he is listed first, last or third should be inconsequential if he remains the leader. If Tzur had been demoted from his leadership role, it would be understandable why the Torah only placed him third. However, given that he continued to hold the leadership position, why is being listed third considered a degradation?
Another question: If he did something so despicable, why is he listed third and not last?
Zera Shimshon answers by first explaining that regarding the qualifications for kingship, there are three distinct paths. The first path entails belonging to a highly esteemed royal lineage. The second path involves possessing exceptional intelligence, which deems an individual worthy of becoming a king. In contrast, the third and least desirable path involves attaining kingship solely through immense wealth, despite being entirely unsuitable for such a leadership position. The Gemara in Megillah teaches that Achashverosh attained kingship through this particular method.
Therefore—explains Zera Shimshon—before Tzur sent his daughter, Cozbi, to corrupt Bnei Yisroel, he was the highest leader in Midian for all three of these reasons. He came from the royal family, he was wise and he was wealthy. However, after his daughter acted so indecently, he defiled his family’s dignity and, therefore, his family’s standing is no longer a reason for him to become king. Even though sending his daughter was successful in the short term to cause damage to Bnei Yisroel, in the long term, it was irresponsible and foolish and shows that he didn’t possess the cleverness that is so vital for a king.
The only reason that remained is the third reason, because he was wealthy, which is a very weak reason to be king. Therefore, to allude that this is the only reason that he remained a king and even though he wasn’t actually “king material,” the Torah listed him thirdly which corresponds to the third way of becoming a king! (This is also the reason that he is listed third and not last to allude that he only possessed the third inferior quality in order to stay king.)
To summarize: Rashi raises a question regarding Tzur’s leadership position in Midian. On the one hand even after Tzur sent his daughter to cause Bnei Yisroel to sin with her, he is still referred to as a “national leader.” On the other hand, in Parshas Matos, he is listed third among the leaders of Midian—implying that others held greater importance. Rashi explains that Tzur’s descent to the third position is a result of his own disgraceful act of abandoning his daughter to engage in shameful behavior to corrupt Bnei Yisroel.
Zera Shimshon asks: Why would Tzur be concerned about his ranking if he still retained his leadership role? After all, whether he was listed first, last or third should have been inconsequential as long as he remained the leader. If Tzur had been demoted, it would have made sense for him to be listed third. However, since he continued to hold his position, it is insignificant where he is mentioned in the list of the leaders of Midian.
Zera Shimshon answers by first examining three qualifications for kingship: belonging to a royal family, possessing intelligence and having wealth. Before Tzur allowed his daughter to corrupt Bnei Yisroel, he fulfilled all three requirements—making him the highest leader in Midian. However, his daughter’s actions tarnished the family’s honor, diminishing the significance of his royal lineage. Additionally, his irresponsible and foolish decision reflected a lack of the required intelligence for a king. Thus, the only remaining qualification was his wealth, which is considered a weak basis for kingship.
The Torah, therefore, lists Tzur as the third leader to signify that his wealth became the sole reason for his continued kingship, despite not possessing the qualities typically associated with a king. By listing him third, the Torah alludes to the third and least desirable path of becoming a king. This explains why Tzur was not listed last, as it emphasizes that his wealth remained a factor—albeit a weak one—in his position of leadership.
HaRav Shimshon Nachmani—author of Zera Shimshon lived in Italy—about 300 years ago, in the time of the Or HaChaim HaKodesh. The Chida writes that he was a great mekubal and wrote many sefarim—including sefarim about “practical Kabbalah”—and asked that all of his sefarim be buried after he passes away, except for Zera Shimshon and Niflaos Shimshon on Avos. HaRav Shimshon Nachmani had one child who died in his lifetime (hence the name “Zera Shimshon”) and in the preface, he promises for people who learn his sefarim after he dies, “ … And your eyes will see children and grandchildren like the offshoots of an olive tree around your tables, wise and understanding with houses filled with all manner of good things … and wealth and honor … ”
