Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT BALAK

Rav David Siverberg

            Towards the beginning of Parashat Balak, the Torah describes Balak as "the king of Moav at that time" (22:4).  As Rashi notes, the words "at that time" indicate that Balak had only recently ascended to the throne.  Rashi explains that Balak had previous served as one of the nesikhei Midyan – Midyanite princes – but was then invited to become the king of Moav.  The sudden defeat of the Emorite King Sichon at the hands of Benei Yisrael sent shockwaves throughout the region and prompted Moav to appoint a strong, capable leader.  They chose Balak for this position and he assumed the position of king over Moav.

            Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi and others noted that the text of this comment of Rashi appears to have been corrupted by a printing error.  A verse from Sefer Yehoshua (13:21) speaks of five nesi'ei Midyan – leaders of Midyan – who were also nesikhei Sichon – princes of Sichon.  It appears that Sichon, who was recognized as the leading power in the region, exerted control over Midyan and appointed five governors over that nation.  Thus, when Rashi speaks of nesikhei Midyan ("princes of Midyan"), he actually refers to the nesikhei Sichon – "princes of Sichon" – mentioned in Sefer Yehoshua.  Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi therefore speculates that the text of Rashi's commentary should read nesikhei Sichon instead of nesikhei Midyan.

            Of course, Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi assumes that Rashi drew upon this verse as the basis for this comment.  Meaning, Rashi understood that Balak was one of the five "nesikhei Sichon" listed in that verse in Sefer Yehoshua.  That verse, however, makes no mention of Balak; it lists as the nesikhei Sichon five other men: Evi, Rekem, Tzur, Chur and Reva.  On what basis, then, does Rashi conclude that Balak was one of the nesikhei Sichon (or, according to our texts, one of the nesikhei Midyan)?

            The Taz, in his Divrei David, answers based on a comment in the Midrash identifying Tzur – one of the five nesikhei Sichon – as Balak.  (Rav Menachem Kasher, in Torah Sheleima, Bamidbar, chapter 25 notes 130-131, cites several Midrashic sources identifying Tzur as Balak.)  If so, then the verse in Yehoshua – which mentions Tzur – clearly lists Balak as one of the princes who governed Midyan under the rule of Sichon.  Rashi thus explains that after Sichon's death at the hands of Benei Yisrael, Balak – who was apparently the most gifted of the Midyanite leaders – was summoned to become the king of Moav.

            It should be noted, however, that later in Sefer Bamidbar (31:8), we read that Benei Yisrael waged battle against Midyan and killed the five "kings of Midyan" – Evi, Rekem, Tzur, Chur and Reva – indicating that all five were kings of Midyan at that time.  If we identify Tzur as Balak, it becomes difficult to explain why he is listed among the rulers of Midyan, as he had already been appointed the king of Moav.  This view in the Midrash thus seems (at least at first glance) difficult to understand.

            The Maharal of Prague, in his Gur Aryeh, suggests an entirely different basis for Rashi's comment, that Balak had served as one of the nesikhei Sichon.  Rather than identifying Tzur as Balak, the Maharal suggests that the verse in Sefer Yehoshua demonstrates that Sichon had appointed governors over the surrounding nations under his rule.  The fact that the five rulers of Midyan are referred to as nesikhei Sichon proves that Sichon had exerted control over the peoples of the region and assigned them governors.  Rashi thus inferred the Balak had likewise served as "a prince of Sichon," and was appointed governor over Moav.  Upon the death of Sichon, he was promoted from the position of governor ruling under the authority of the Emorites to the status of king.  According to the Maharal, then, Balak had previously served not as a governor of Midyan, but rather as a governor of Moav, and after Sichon's death, whereupon Moav was able to assert its independence, he was promoted to the position of king.

******

            We read in Parashat Balak of the message sent by Balak, the king of Moav, to the seer Bilam asking that he come and place a curse upon Benei Yisrael.  In this message Balak describes to Bilam the threat allegedly posed by Benei Yisrael, noting "ve-hu yoshev mi-muli" – that this nation "settles next to me" (22:5).  The Ba'al Ha-turim explains this phrase as a reference to the ananei ha-kavod, the "clouds of glory" that encircled Benei Yisrael as they traveled.  He writes, "[The nation] settles next to me – it sees me but I cannot see it because of the clouds encircling it."

            On one level, the Ba'al Ha-turim explains this verse as a simple reference to Benei Yisrael's clear military advantage over Moav.  Moav cannot launch a strike against them because of the protective cloud-clover, but Benei Yisrael enjoy a clear view of Moav which enables them to easily plan and execute a military offensive against the neighboring nation.

            Some writers, however, suggested that the Ba'al Ha-turim may refer here to something beyond a pragmatic, military advantage.  The Maharsham (Rav Shalom Schwadron, Poland, 1835-1911), in his work Tekhelet Mordekhai, writes that the Ba'al Ha-turim refers to the Gemara's comment (Berakhot 7a) that the moment of sunrise marks an idan ritcha – a time of divine anger over the world.  As Benei Yisrael are shielded from the sun, Balak bemoaned, they are immune to this "moment of anger" rendering them a particularly dangerous threat to the neighboring nations.  In a generally similar vein, the Siftei Tzadik (cited in Rav David Mandelbaum's Pardes Yosef He-chadash) suggested that when Balak describes Benei Yisrael as "covering the face of the earth," he refers to their dissociation from physical existence, the entirely spiritual life that they led during their travels in the wilderness.

            It emerges from these comments that Balak was frightened not by Benei Yisrael's numbers or ammunition, but rather by the "otherworldly" nature of their existence.  They were not subject to the usual patterns and forces of the physical world that affect other peoples.  This is perhaps the deeper meaning of the parasha's opening verse: "Balak the son of Tzipor SAW all that Israel had done to the Emorites."  The term "saw" here clearly refers not to simple observation, but rather to the assimilation and analysis of the implications of Benei Yisrael's victory.  He perceptively understood that Benei Yisrael do not follow the standard rules that govern the interaction between peoples; he realized that their power lies in supernatural forces that can be opposed and defeated only by another, competing supernatural force – such as Bilam's curses.

Interestingly, the Keli Yakar interprets the phrase "all that Israel had done to the Emorites" as a reference to Yaakov's victory over the Emorites of his time, which Yaakov describes as having been won with his "sword and bow" (Bereishit 48:22).  Targum Onkelos famously translates "my sword and my bow" to mean Yaakov's prayers, which Yaakov recognized as the true source of his military success.  Balak thus understood that Benei Yisrael – Yaakov's descendants – defeat their foes through their unique relationship with God, with the power of prayer.  (See also Rashi to 22:4, who explained Balak's analogy to a cow grazing in the field as referring to the power of prayer.)  What frightened Balak was precisely Benei Yisrael's spiritual force, rather than their military might.  Indeed, when Bilam failed in his attempts to place a curse upon the nation, he advised Balak to lead them to sin, and in this way Moav indeed succeeded in bringing calamity upon Benei Yisrael.  Balak recognized the spiritual force behind Benei Yisrael's success, and sought to defeat them by undermining that power.

God later admonishes Benei Yisrael through the prophet Mikha (6:5), "My nation!  Please remember that which Balak king of Moav advised regarding you, and how Bilam son of Be'or responded to him…in order that you know the righteousness of the Lord."  Balak posed a particularly dangerous threat to Benei Yisrael because he understood the source of their strength.  Normally, as David describes in Tehillim (20:8), "These [come] with chariots, and these [come] with horses; but we – we mention the Name of our God!"  Horses and chariots pose little threat to Benei Yisrael when they respond with "the Name of our God."  Balak, however, sought specifically to undermine that spiritual basis of Benei Yisrael's prowess – first through the perceived mystical powers of Bilam, and then by causing Israel to sin.  This is what made Balak such a dangerous enemy, and why the prophet enjoins us to recall God's kindness in foiling his efforts.

******

            The Torah tells in Parashat Balak that before Bilam's third and final attempt to place a curse upon Benei Yisrael, he looked upon them and saw them "residing according to their tribes," in response to which he was endowed with "the spirit of God" and inspired to bestow a blessing upon them (24:2).  The Gemara (Bava Batra 60a) famously interprets this phrase to mean "she-ein pitcheihen mekhuvanin zeh ke-neged zeh" – the entrances to their tents were not positioned opposite each other.  The context of the Gemara's comment is the halakhic concept hezek re'iya, that the possibility of seeing into a neighbor's home constitutes a form of legal "damage."  Halakha thus requires that when building a house adjacent to another, one must ensure not to position the windows and doors in a manner that allows the neighbors to look into each other's home.  Bilam took note of Benei Yisrael's compliance with this rule, as they ensured not to position the entrances to their tents opposite one another.

            In attempting to understand why this architectural policy left such an impression on Bilam, we should perhaps focus on the broader concept underlying this halakha of hezek re'iya.  Namely, we are discouraged from looking at our friends and neighbors as the definitive models that we must follow in life.  All too often, people reach decisions regarding their budgeting of time and finances, child-raising policies, and general lifestyle based on what they perceive among their peers.  Many people spend too much time looking into each other's tents, observing and taking note of what their friends and neighbors do.  This tendency is terribly destructive on a number of different levels.  For one thing, it causes people to live under the constant pressure of maintaining or exceeding the standards set by their peers, rendering it virtually impossible to achieve any sort of contentment in life.  But even worse, perhaps, this tendency engenders a de facto state of competition among friends, family members and neighbors.  Social relationships are reduced – or transformed – to a struggle for superiority.  This unending tension that results from the mentality of "keeping up with the Jones's" threatens social stability and can destroy families and communities.

            Chazal list as among the primary qualities of Bilam the trait of ayin ha-ra, an "evil eye" (Avot 5:19).  Ayin ha-ra refers (at least in this context) to an attitude of envy that causes one to wish for the demise and failure of others.  The antidote to the ayin ha-ra of Bilam is "she-ein pitcheihen mekhuvanin zeh ke-neged zeh," avoiding the tendency to constantly observe the lifestyle of others.  If a person focuses on his own "tent," and can feel content with what he has regardless of the achievements and assets of others, then he will not come to look upon them with envy and enmity.  And when the entire Jewish nation feels truly concerned for one another, and looks upon each other with love and goodwill rather than with a sense of jealousy and competition, then we will be immune to the ayin ha-ra of Bilam and his successors, and we will be truly deserving of God's blessing.

******

            Yesterday, we discussed the verse in Parashat Balak (24:2) which tells that Bilam, the gentile seer summoned to curse Benei Yisrael, beheld the Israelite nation "residing according to their tribes," which inspired him to bless them rather than place a curse.  The Gemara in Masekhet Bava Batra (60a) famously explains this verse to mean that Benei Yisrael made a point of ensuring that the entrances to their tents did not face one another, in order to guarantee each family its privacy.  This respect for privacy left a profound impression on Bilam, to the extent to which, as the verse states, "va-tehi alav ru'ach Elokim" ("the spirit of God came upon him").  Yesterday we suggested one possible explanation for the significance underlying this quality of Benei Yisrael as observed by Bilam; today we present a different approach, taken by Rav Baruch Yitzchak Yissachar Leventhal in his Birkat Yitzchak (Jerusalem, 5706).

            Chazal famously comment that Avraham Avinu made four entrances to his tent, one in each direction, in order to allow all guests easy and immediate entry into his home.  (This passage is cited by Rav Ovadia of Bartenura, in his commentary to Masekhet Avot 1:5.)  Rav Leventhal suggested that the image of the four entrances might reflect the universal nature of Avraham's hospitality.  He welcomed guests of all "stripes and colors," of all backgrounds and orientations.  A door was open in every "direction," for every kind of person.  Avraham's greatness lay not only in his exertion on behalf of his guests, but also in his welcoming all different types of people and offering them kindness and assistance.

            Rav Leventhal applied this symbolism to the Gemara's comment concerning Benei Yisrael's tents, as well.  The image of the tents not facing one another perhaps alludes to the warmth and kindness extended by each family even to those who were different than they, whose "entrance" faced a different "direction."  What impressed Bilam was not merely the privacy afforded to each family, but also the respect and love afforded to families of different orientations.  Benei Yisrael lived together peacefully despite their differences, and for this, Bilam realized, they were deserving of blessing.  He saw the nation "residing according to their tribes," with each tribe featuring its unique qualities and tendencies, yet at the same time respecting all other tribes.  Bilam thus exclaimed, "How good are your tents, Yaakov, your dwelling places, Israel!" (24:5).  If Benei Yisrael can live in peace, harmony and mutual respect despite their differences, then we are indeed destined for success and worthy of divine blessing.

******

            Bilam's third and final blessing of Benei Yisrael begins with the famous declaration, "Ma tovu ohalekha Yaakov, mishkenotekha Yisrael" ("How good are your tents, Yaakov, your dwelling places, Israel" – 24:5).  A number of Midrashic sources interpret the words ohalekha and mishkenotekha ("tents" and "dwelling places") as references to synagogues and study halls.  Bilam here expresses his admiration for the nation's religious institutions which the people regularly frequent to the point where they can justifiably referred to as their "residences."

            The Gemara in Masekhet Sanhedrin (105b) cites Rabbi Yochanan as commenting regarding this verse, "From the blessing of that wicked man you learn what was in his heart."  Rabbi Yochanan understood Bilam's blessings as a mirror image of the curses he had sought to place upon Benei Yisrael.  His admiration for the nation's synagogues and study halls thus reflected his desire to place upon them a curse that they should have no such institutions.

            We might suggest explaining Rabbi Yochanan's comment in light of the background to this prophecy.  As discussed in the previous two editions of S.A.L.T., Bilam became inspired to proclaim this blessing upon seeing Am Yisrael "residing according to their tribes" (24:2), which the Gemara (Bava Batra 60a) interprets to mean that their doors did not face one another.  What impressed Bilam was the people's concern for the privacy of others, as manifest by their positioning the entrances to their tents such that they could not see into each other's homes.

            But whereas the people's sensitivity for their neighbors' privacy certainly evoked Bilam's respect and admiration, it perhaps revealed their potential weakness, as well.  If the people conduct themselves too "privately," if every household is isolated from its neighbors, religious practice will ultimately become overly individualized and subjective.  If the Torah is observed only in the privacy of the people's homes, it will likely lose its uniformity.  Bilam saw Benei Yisrael's respect for privacy and realized that this respect could, over time, result in the disintegration of the standardized observance of the Torah.  With households isolated from one another, each will adopt its own set of laws and customs, leading to the eventual breakdown of Am Yisrael's religious identity as a nation.

            Bilam therefore sought to eliminate the public religious institutions, the synagogues and schools, which lend Torah observance a communal quality and thereby ensure its uniformity.  These institutions serve as the glue that binds Jewish households to one another and places each within a broader framework of a standardized creed.  Participation in communal religious study and practice helps ensure that notwithstanding personal custom, Torah observance retains a degree of consistency and uniformity.  Bilam therefore endeavored to obliterate the communal aspect of Jewish religious life, and to restrict it to the isolated confines of each household, where it would gradually become distinct and then entirely dissociated from the practices observed by the rest of the nation.

            Thankfully, "the Lord your God transformed the curse for you into a blessing, for the Lord your God loves you" (Devarim 23:6).  Bilam's curse became an eternal blessing for the proliferation of public institutions of Jewish learning and worship, thereby guaranteeing the survival of Am Yisrael's collective religious identity for all time.

*******

            The opening verse of Parashat Balak describes the reaction of the Moavite king to Benei Yisrael's stunning military victory over the bordering Emorite kingdom: "Balak, the son of Tzipor, saw all that Israel did to the Emorites."  The Israelites' capture of the neighboring Emorite region prompted Balak to summon the gentile seer Bilam to place a curse on Benei Yisrael which would, in his mind, allow him to defeat the allegedly threatening nation.

            Rav Yitzchak Menachem Abrahamson, in his work Be'er Mayim (London, 5677), finds significance in the fact that Balak took note of what "Israel" – the nation as a whole – had done to the Emorites.  What impressed – and frightened – Balak was that Moshe, Benei Yisrael's leader, was not personally involved in this campaign.  Indeed, throughout the narrative of Israel's defeat over the Emorite kingdoms of Sichon and Og (21:24-35), the Torah speaks of Israel waging war as a nation, perhaps suggesting that Moshe was not actively involved.  His recorded involvement is limited to dispatching spies to scout the region of Yazer (21:32).  (Rav Abrahamson does not address here Chazal's famous account of Moshe's confrontation with Og.)  Balak saw that Benei Yisrael were not dependent on Moshe, that they could wage war without him.  He recognized that the nation in its entirety possessed a certain power that did not depend on any particular individual; Am Yisrael's strength originated not from a single leader, but from its collective quality.  This led him to conclude that they pose an especially dangerous threat to which he had to respond with extraordinary measures.

            Interestingly enough, Bilam expresses a similar observation in the second blessing he declares: "Behold, a nation that rises like a lion and leaps like a lion; it does not lie until it eats its prey and drinks the blood of the slain" (23:24).  According to Rashi, Bilam speaks here allegorically of the basic, day-to-day mitzvot performed by all Jews: tzitzit, shema, tefillin and so on.  Bilam confirms Balak's observation that Benei Yisrael's strength is not drawn exclusively from its leaders; it evolves from the joint efforts of all members of the nation, each of whom commits himself to the laws and demands of the Torah.

            Bilam's emphasis in this blessing on the power of the "common" Jew contrasts with his first blessing, where he stresses the merits of the nation's spiritual giants of past and present: "I see them from the tops of cliffs; I look upon them from the hills…" (23:9).  Rashi explains this verse as a reference to the nation's roots – the patriarchs and matriarchs which form the foundation upon which Am Yisrael is built.  He concludes this blessing by declaring, "May my soul die the death of [Israel's] upright ones; may my end be like theirs."  Once again, Bilam expresses his awe and admiration for the nation's spiritual leaders, as opposed to the power generated by the collective merits of the nation as a whole.

            It thus emerges that Am Yisrael's strength is derived from both the influence and merit of its elite, as well as the combined efforts of the masses.  We cannot survive without the direction and guidance of the spiritual leaders, but nor can the masses rely on them exclusively without exerting their own efforts in pursuing religious excellence.  Only through the combined effects of the avodat ha-kodesh performed by the leaders and the masses can Am Yisrael prosper and withstand the threats posed by the "Bilam's" of each generation.

******

            We read in Parashat Balak that when the Moavite king's dignitaries approach Bilam to ask that he come to Moav to curse Benei Yisrael, Bilam asks that they spend the night there while he waits for God's instruction (22:8).  Rashi explains, "The sacred spirit [prophecy] rested upon him only at night; this is true of all prophets among the gentile nations, and Lavan similarly [received prophecy] only at night, as it says (Bereishit 31:24), 'God came to Lavan in a nocturnal dream'."

            Rav Avraham Yitzchak Sorotzkin, in his Rinat Yitzchak, observes that Rashi's comments appear to run in opposition to the Gemara's remark in Masekhet Sanhedrin (105a) identifying Bilam as Lavan.  Rashi points to Lavan as another example – in addition to Bilam – of a gentile who received prophecy at night, clearly indicating that he identified them as different people.  Rav Sorotzkin explains that Rashi's comment is likely based upon a later passage in Masekhet Sanhedrin (106b) which tells that Bilam was killed at the age of thirty-six.  The author of this statement obviously disagrees with the view that identifies Bilam as Lavan, who lived well over two centuries earlier, and Rashi thus presumably follows this position.  (Obviously, the view identifying Bilam as Lavan must assume that he lived an exceptionally long time, which itself requires some explanation.)

            It is also noteworthy that Rashi refers to Lavan separately from the "prophets among the gentile nations" ("this is true of all prophets among the gentile nations, and Lavan similarly [received prophecy] only at night").  We might infer from Rashi's comments that he did not include Lavan under the category of "prophets among the gentile nations."  Rav Sorotzkin notes that this exclusion could be explained on the basis of the etymology of the word navi (prophet).  Abarbanel (in his Ma'ayanei Ha-yeshu'a, 3:2), among others, asserts that the word navi is derived from Biblical term niv, which refers to speech (as in "Borei niv sefatayim" – Yeshayahu 57:19).  A prophet is called a navi because he bears the responsibility of transmitting the divine message to the people.  As such, Rav Sorotzkin surmises, if a person beholds a "prophetic" vision that does not require delivering a message from God, he cannot be described with the term navi.  In the case of Lavan, God appeared to him to command that he refrain from causing Yaakov harm; he was not ordered to convey any kind of message to any person.  For this reason, perhaps, Rashi did not include Lavan under the category of "prophets among the gentile nations" and therefore referred to him separately.