The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Parashat Balak records four prophecies spoken by the gentile seer, Bilam, who was hired by Balak, king of Moav, to place a curse on Benei Yisrael. After three unsuccessful attempts, all of which resulted in the declaration of a blessing rather than a curse, an exasperated Balak sends Bilam home. Before he leaves, however, Bilam utters one final prophecy, which he introduces as follows: "And now, I go back to my people; let me advise you of what this people will do to your people in the end of days" (24:14).

Many commentators have struggled to interpret this verse. Bilam here tells Balak that he prepares to "advise him" ("iatzekha"), but gives no indication as to the content of that advice. Instead, he tells him that he will give advice "of what this people will do to your people at the end of days." How is this prophetic foretelling of future events considered "advice"?

Rabbenu Yosef Bekhor Shor, and, later, Abarbanel, explain that the fact that Bilam's prophecy will occur only "at the end of days" itself constitutes the advice. In this prophecy, Bilam foresees Moav's eventual destruction at the hands of Benei Yisrael. He thereby advises Balak that he has no need to devise tactics and strategies to deal with the threat posed by Benei Yisrael, because many centuries have yet to pass before Benei Yisrael will inflict any harm on Moav. This approach, however, will have to justify the elaborate description of Benei Yisrael's supremacy "in the end of days" foretold in this prophecy. If the entire purpose served by this soliloquy is to assuage Balak's fears of an impending Israelite attack, there appears to be little need for an in-depth look at what Benei Yisrael will do to other nations centuries henceforth.

Rashi resolves the problem in this verse by dividing it into two separate, unrelated clauses. Bilam here tells Balak two things. First, he advises Balak to lure Benei Yisrael to sin through sexual seduction, as indeed occurs in the following chapter, which tells the tragic story of Ba'al Pe'or. For whatever reason, the Torah chooses not to spell out the particulars of the plan here. The Rashbam (who adopts a slightly different approach to this verse, as we will see) suggests that Bilam told his plan to Balak in a whisper and it was therefore not recorded in the Chumash here. Elsewhere, however, the Torah explicitly casts the blame for the Ba'al Pe'or incident on Bilam. In Parashat Matot, in his reproach to the officers returning from the war against Midyan (31:16), Moshe makes reference to the story of Ba'al Pe'or and describes it as having occurred "at the bidding of Bilam." In any event, according to Rashi, this plan was the "advice" Bilam gives Balak before returning to his homeland. In addition, he informs the king "of what this people will do to your people at the end of days." This information does not constitute the content of the advice, but rather something entirely separate.

The Rashbam, like his grandfather, Rashi, also understands the advice here as a reference to the unwritten plot of Ba'al Pe'or. Unlike Rashi, however, he finds a connection between the two clauses. Bilam urges Balak to accept his advice to bring about the downfall of Am Yisrael, because he prophetically sees what Benei Yisrael will otherwise do to Moav many centuries later.

All the approaches we have seen thus far assume that the word "iatzekha" indeed translates as "I will advise you." Some commentators, however, explain this verse by advancing different interpretations of the term "etza" in this context. Rabbi Yosef Kara claims that to give an "etza" does not necessarily mean to give advice; it can also refer to revealing secrets, or any disclosure of otherwise inaccessible information. The Ramban claims that "etza" here means a plan, rather than advice. Bilam thus tells Balak, "Let me tell you what God plans for this people to do to your people… " He reveals to Balak not a piece of advice, but rather God's plans for the future.

******

Before Bilam proclaims his third and final blessing to Benei Yisrael, we are told, "Bilam saw that it pleased God to bless Israel, and he did not, as on the previous occasions, go in search of omens; he rather turned his face towards the wilderness" (24:1). Rashi explains this to mean that Bilam adopted a new tactic: rather than making random, hopeful attempts at blessing Benei Yisrael, he decided to bring to mind their sins, particular their sin "in the wilderness," referring to the golden calf. This way, he figured, he would receive the Almighty's consent to place a curse on Benei Yisrael.

The Rashbam, however, explains much differently, interpreting this verse as describing Bilam's drastic change of heart. Unlike in previous occasions, when he tried placing a curse on Benei Yisrael but was compelled to proclaim a blessing, instead, this time he decided to bless them wholeheartedly. In this vein, the Rashbam explains the conclusion of the next verse, "the spirit of God came upon him," something that did not occur in the previous two instances. The Rashbam claims that this time, due to Bilam's change of heart, God bestowed His Shekhina upon him lovingly, rather than forcing the prophetic blessing into his mouth. (See the commentary of Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, who follows and elaborates upon this approach.)

If this is the case, then presumably this final blessing is of an entirely different nature than the first two. Given that this blessing was proclaimed willingly, we would perhaps expect it to possess unique meaning and significance. Indeed, some writers have explained on this basis the Gemara's comment in Masekhet Sanhedrin (105b) that although all of Bilam's blessings ultimately reverted back to curses at some point in Jewish history, his blessing of "synagogues and study halls" was never reversed; it remained a blessing eternally. As the commentaries explain, this blessing of "synagogues and study halls" refers to the famous verse of "Ma tovu" - "How good are your tents, Yaakov, your dwelling places, Israel" – the verse that opens this final blessing. Some have suggested that since Bilam declared all other blessings under coercion, with the hope of cursing Benei Yisrael, they ultimately reversed back into curses; this blessing, however, which was proclaimed willfully and admiringly, always remained a blessing. This would also justify the practice of reciting the verse of "Ma tovu" upon entering the synagogue. The Maharshal, and, later, Rav Yaakov Emden, objected to – or at least questioned – this practice in light of the fact that this verse was stated by Bilam with malicious intent. According to the Rashbam, however, Bilam here actually intended to bless Yisrael with a full heart, and quite understandably, then, it is welcomed into the daily prayer service.

One source, however, appears, at least at first glance, to refute this position of the Rashbam. The Gemara there in Masekhet Sanhedrin comments, "From the blessing of that wicked man, you see what was in his heart – he wanted that they should not have synagogues and study halls." Meaning, since Bilam's blessings are the diametric opposite of the curse he sought to declare, we can infer the intended curse from the blessing. If he blessed Benei Yisrael with synagogues and study halls, then he apparently had wished to curse them that they should not have any such institutions. Clearly, then, according to this passage, even in this instance Bilam intended to curse Benei Yisrael but God coercively reversed the curse into a blessing.

We might suggest reconciling this Gemara with the position of the Rashbam in light of a creative approach to the Gemara taken by Rav Moshe Feinstein, in his "Derash Moshe." The Torah tells that before administering this final blessing, "Bilam raised his eyes and saw Israel dwelling according to tribes, and the spirit of God came upon him" (24:2). A well knoGemara in Masekhet Bava Batra (60a), cited by Rashi in his commentary to this verse, explains that Bilam saw "that their doors do not face one another." Benei Yisrael had arranged their residences in such a way that ensured the privacy of every family, reflecting an admirable sensitivity to human dignity that inspired Bilam and brought "the spirit of God" upon him. Rav Moshe suggests that perhaps this admiration Bilam felt towards Benei Yisrael led him, ironically enough, to try "cursing" Benei Yisrael that they should have no Batei Kenesset or Batei Midrash. Seeing their high standard of conduct in the home, Bilam wondered what need these people have for public religious institutions. If a person can act so Godly at home, why must he go to a synagogue or house of public study for spiritual inspiration? He therefore sought to take away from Benei Yisrael their Batei Kenesset and Batei Midrash, deeming them unnecessary.

Thus, Bilam truly intended to bless Benei Yisrael, as the Rashbam explains, but nevertheless he tried denying them the presence of synagogues and houses of learning, thinking that this, too, would be a blessing for them. He did not understand that proper conduct at home does not render Batei Kenesset and Batei Midrash obsolete, but quite to the contrary, directly results from the Batei Kenesset and Batei Midrash. God therefore reversed his intended "blessing" into the greatest blessing of all, that Am Yisrael should always benefit from their indispensable institutions of public prayer and study.

******

In his second blessing to Benei Yisrael, Bilam declares, "He has not looked upon any corruption in Yaakov, and has seen no falsehood in Israel, the Lord their God is with them, and their King's acclaim in their midst" (23:21). Targum Onkelos explains this verse to mean that when God assessed Benei Yisrael, he found that they have not worshipped idols or engaged in any corruption. Rashi and Rashbam, however, explain differently. According to their interpretation, this verse means that even when Benei Yisrael sin before God, he does not exact punishment from them. As Rashi writes, "When they violate His word, he does not assess them so scrupulously to contemplate their corruption or falsehood, that they violate His law."

At first glance, this declaration seems astonishing. How can Bilam – conveying God's blessing – make such a claim, that the Almighty pays no attention to Benei Yisrael's wrongdoing? For one thing, this is simply not the case; Sefer Bamidbar – and Biblical history in general - is replete with unfortunate incidents where God severely punishes Benei Yisrael for their misconduct. In fact, the final section of this parasha, Parashat Balak, tells of such an event (the sin of Ba'al Pe'or). Additionally, do we not believe that we are held accountable for our sins? Certainly the Almighty does not simply ignore Benei Yisrael's spiritual shortcomings!

Rav Aharon Kotler is cited (in "Mishnat Rabbi Aharon") as offering an explanation based on the comments of Seforno to Parashat Emor (Vayikra 24:3). Seforno there addresses the problem as to why the Torah appears to indicate that only Aharon, and not any other kohen, lights the menora and offers incense in the Mishkan. We know that these two rituals may be performed by any kohen; why, then, does the Torah seem to require that specifically Aharon, the kohen gadol, perform them? Seforno answers that this requirement of the kohen gadol for these rituals applied only during Benei Yisrael's sojourn in the wilderness, because "throughout the entire period of the wilderness, the matters [concerning] the Mishkan every day resembled the matters [concerning] the Mishkan for all time on Yom Kippur." Meaning, the laws of the Mishkan on a daily basis in the wilderness resembled those of the Mishkan on Yom Kippur generally. (As Rav Kotler notes, some have cited this comment of Seforno as a basis for the famous position of the Vilna Gaon, that Aharon had the option of performing the Yom Kippur service at any time during the forty years in the wilderness. One may, however, question why, according to the Seforno, Aharon was not obligated to do so on a daily basis.) Therefore, since halakha requires that the kohen gadol lights the menora and offers incense on Yom Kippur, these obligations likewise fell upon Aharon's shoulders during Benei Yisrael's sojourn through the wilderness.

This, Rav Kotler suggests, may help explain Bilam's blessing (as understood by Rashi and Rashbam) that God does not take Benei Yisrael's sins into account. Bilam referred specifically to Benei Yisrael's current situation, in which they lived in a constant state of "Yom Kippur." Yom Kippur grants atonement to all those who repent (with the exception of several particularly grave sins). Therefore, whenever Benei Yisrael repent for their sins in the wilderness, they achieve instant atonement. It is to this that Bilam perhaps referred when he proclaimed that God pays no attention, as it were, to the sins of Israel.

Rav Yisrael Be'eri, in his "Kevoda Shel Torah," explains differently, claiming that Bilam refers to only one of two aspects of sin. A sinner is punished for not only the wrongful act itself, but also for the rebellion against God latent within the sin. Rashi, as cited earlier, writes that God does not "contemplate" Benei Yisrael's wrongdoing. Rav Be'eri suggests that this refers to this second element of sin. God indeed holds Benei Yisrael accountable for their wrongdoing, but He does not look behind the action to establish an underlying sense of rebellion and betrayal of His authority. Why? Because, as the verse concludes, "the Lord their God is with them." The Almighty, "who assess the heart of man," knows that even when Benei Yisrael sin, He is with them, He is in their hearts, and they have no intention of betraying Him. Though they are far from perfect, in the innermost recesses of their hearts they have always remained loyal and faithful servants. Therefore, though He may very well become angry, and may very well punish them, He will never consider their wrongdoing an act of outright defiance and rebellion.

******

Yesterday, we looked at a verse from Bilam's second blessing to Benei Yisrael: "He has not looked upon any corruption in Yaakov, and has seen no falsehood in Israel" (23:21). We noted the obvious difficulty as to how Bilam can claim that God ignores, as it were, Benei Yisrael's sins. This is simply not true; God does judge Benei Yisrael and punishes us accordingly, based on His determination.

Today we will present the approach taken by the Malbim to this verse. The Malbim, characteristically, explains this verse by carefully defining every word used and differentiating between seemingly synonymous terms. Here, the Malbim distinguishes between the words in the first clause of this verse and the parallel terms employed in the second clause. Let us first cite the verse in Hebrew: "Lo hibit aven ba-Yaakov ve-lo ra'a amal be-Yisrael." The Malbim begins by distinguishing between the word "hibit," translated in our citation as "looked upon," and the term used in the following clause in the verse, "ra'a" ("see"). "Hibit," the Malbim claims, means to pay attention, to take note, or to take into consideration, whereas "ra'a" refers to actual seeing. Thus, the first clause of the verse says that God does not pay attention to "the 'aven' of 'Yaakov'." "Aven," according to the Malbim, means wrongful acts, as opposed to the term used in the second clause in the verse – "amal," which denotes a sinful interior, improper thoughts or attitudes. God does not pay attention to the wrongful deeds of "Yaakov" – referring to the commoners, as opposed to "Yisrael," the term used later in the verse, which means the spiritual elite of the nation. By and large, the commoners commit their mistakes out of ignorance, due to insufficient knowledge. God therefore does not "pay attention" to these acts, He does not hold the masses accountable for their wrongdoing. He rather forgives them for their sins, knowing full well that they act out of ignorance. In the second , Bilam declares that when it comes to "Yisrael," the nation's spiritual giants, God sees no "amal." He clearly sees no "aven," wrongful actions, but He might, on occasion, detect "amal" – an inappropriate thought or inclination. Nevertheless, since this thought remains but a thought, and never reaches the point of practical expression, He does not punish them. The Malbim explains this based on the famous dictum that God does not generally punish Benei Yisrael for wrongful thoughts, but rather for wrongful actions. It thus turns out that neither the masses nor the tzadikim are punished by God for their sins.

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his "Yalkut Yehuda," employs part of the Malbim's theory to reach a far simpler explanation to this verse, one which strongly resembles an approach we encountered yesterday. If, indeed, "aven" means sinful actions, whereas "amal" refers to a sinful heart, then, Rabbi Ginsburg suggests, we may interpret the second clause of this verse as simply explaining the first clause. Why does the Almighty forgive Benei Yisrael for their "aven," for their wrongful actions? Because "lo ra'a amal be-Yisrael" – He does not see any wrongful thoughts, He can see that Benei Yisrael's sins do not result from a fundamentally corrupt interior, from a thoroughly contaminated essence. As the verse continues, "the Lord their God is with them" – even when they are guilty of wrongdoing, they remain God's loyal subjects, they sin out of weakness, rather than out of a desire to rebel. He is prepared to forgive Benei Yisrael for their wrongful actions because He knows that these actions do not reflect a rejection of His authority or fundamental breach of our relationship with Him.

*****

Bilam concludes his first berakha to Benei Yisrael by exclaiming, "Tamot nafshi mot yesharim" – "May I die the death of the upright!" (23:10). Chazal (Avoda Zara 25a and elsewhere) interpret the word "yesharim" ("the upright") in this verse as a reference to the avot, the patriarchs. Bilam thus longs to die the death of the three avot. What exactly promoted this exclamation, why did Bilam suddenly experience a longing to resemble the patriarchs, and why does he refer to them specifically as "yesharim"?

The Netziv, in his commentary to this verse and, at greater length, in his introduction to Sefer Bereishit, advances a fundamental theory to explain why the avot are described by Chazal as "yesharim." He claims that this term refers not to their Godliness or sanctity, their unique spiritual qualities and powers, but rather to their proper conduct in the realm of what the Netziv describes as "halikhot olam" – good manners and a genuine concern for even those different from themselves. The Netziv proceeds to cite several examples of the patriarchs' basic good qualities and concern for others. Avraham fervently prayed on behalf of the corrupt city of Sedom, whose population represented the diametric opposite of everything he had spent his life promoting. We find that Yitzchak too, responded with surprising benevolence to Avimelekh, whose kingdom had mistreated him, and Yaakov likewise dealt with his devious father-in-law and employer, Lavan, with utmost patience and indulgence. The avot were not only spiritual giants, but giant human beings. They demonstrated the highest standards of interpersonal conduct and sincere concern for others, independent of their unique spirituality and closeness to God.

Bilam, overcome by profound respect and awe towards Benei Yisrael, feels no regret over his failure to attain their level of sanctity, of knowledge of Torah and commitment to mitzvot. He has no place in all this whatsoever. But what he does envy, at this moment of reverence, is Benei Yisrael's elevated moral status, the standards of ethical behavior that he observes. (Unfortunately, as we know, this standard did not last; the Netziv points specifically to the period of the Second Temple as a time when Benei Yisrael were committed to Torah and mitzvot, but when people failed to show respect to those who held different ideas and views.) He acknowledges his moral shortcomings, specifically his attempt to destroy an entire nation, as opposed to the prophets of Israel who would lament the downfall of even the most corrupt regimes and empathize with their suffering. Bilam longingly expresses his admiration for the "yesharim," the patriarchs who established the commitment to high moral standards among Benei Yisrael, recognizing just how far he is from the moral conduct exhibited by the nation he had sought to annihilate.

******

In his third berakha to Benei Yisrael, Bilam compares them to "cedars beside the water" (24:6). The Gemara in Masekhet Ta'anit (20a) comments, "The curse that Achiya Ha-shiloni placed on Yisrael was better than the blessing with which Bilam blessed them." As told in Sefer Melakhim I (chapter 14), the prophet Achiya Ha-shiloni forewarns the ultimate downfall of the Northern Kingdom, and he predicts, "The Lord will strike Israel until it sways like a reed in water" (verse 15). According to the Gemara, this curse is actually more favorable towards Benei Yisrael than Bilam's blessing that Benei Yisrael will be like a cedar. For a reed, as flimsy as it is, can never be uprooted. It is firmly rooted in the water, such that no matter how strong a wind bends it back and forth in every direction, it will always stand its ground. The cedar, however, as strong as it is, has no firm roots in the ground. All it takes, says the Gemara, is a single gust from the south to topple even the mightiest of cedars.

The Chatam Sofer, in his "Torat Moshe" on Parashat Balak, expands upon this comparison drawn by Bilam between Benei Yisrael and the cedar, as understood by Chazal. He suggests that the vulnerability of the cedar described by the Gemara refers metaphorically not to any political instability or military disadvantage, but rather to Benei Yisrael's spiritual Achilles' heel that Bilam prophetically discovers. This entire third blessing, which begins with the famous verse, "How good are your tents, Yaakov," is understood by Chazal as lauding Benei Yisrael religious accomplishments, as it describes their synagogues, institutions of learning, and scholars. But amidst these remarkable achievements, Bilam notes one weakness: all it takes is a single blow of the "southern wind" to knock them down. Bilam sees Benei Yisrael's vulnerability to conflicting spiritual forces. Once their yetzer ha-ra (evil inclination) is activated, it can easily knock them down, just as the southern wind topples a cedar as if it weighed next to nothing.

This, the Chatam Sofer writes, helps resolve a basic question about Bilam's strategy in dealing with Benei Yisrael. Before departing Moav, Bilam advises Balak to lure Benei Yisrael to sin, to send Moavite women to seduce them to immorality and idol worship, as a means of destroying them (see Rashi, 24:14). This plan almost worked; if not for Pinchas' heroic act, God would have destroyed Benei Yisrael (see 25:11). Many commentators ask, why did Bilam not think of this earlier? Why did he insist on his attempt to place a curse on Benei Yisrael, which proved to be an exercise in futility, and cause so much grief and aggravation to his patron, Balak? The Chatam Sofer suggests that it was only over the course of blessing Benei Yisrael did Bilam discover their "cedar" quality, that even the most righteous among them are vulnerable to the forces of the yetzer ha-ra.

Understandably, then, the Gemara in a sense prefers the curse of Achiya Ha-shiloni. Though he predicted the ongoing turbulence that would befall Benei Yisrael from the time of Yeravam on, he also guaranteed a certain degree of protection, that Benei Yisrael will somehow survive the storm and remain firmly rooted in its tradition and spiritual origins.

As an afterthought, the Chatam Sofer adds that in his opinion, this Gemara forms the basis of one of the most widespread customs in Jewish prayer: swaying ("shuckling"). Swaying during prayer expresses our wish that the "blessing" of Achiya Ha-shiloni be fulfilled, that regardlof what pressures and forces are applied to us, we always stand our ground and remain attached to our roots, just as the reed sways back and forth in the water, but can never be uprooted.

******

Before each attempt to curse Benei Yisrael, Bilam has Balak erect seven altars and offer two sacrifices upon each, such that in total he brought forty-two sacrifices. The Gemara in Masekhet Sota (47a) comments, "Because of the forty-two sacrifices that Balak, king of Moav, offered to curse Israel, forty-two children among them were torn apart." The Gemara here refers to a somewhat obscure incident told towards the beginning of Sefer Melakhim II (end of chapter 2). Shortly after Eliyahu's death, his disciple and successor as prophet, Elisha, comes to the city of Bet-El and is greeted by a group of youngsters who hurl insults at him. Elisha curses them with God's Name, at which point two bears come out of the forest and tear apart forty-two of them.

What connection does the Gemara see between this incident in Sefer Melakhim and Balak's attempt to have Benei Yisrael cursed?

The commentators debate the precise nature of Bilam's powers, whether he indeed possessed prophetic powers, as implied throughout our parasha and more explicitly in the writings of Chazal, or if he was but a talented sorcerer, as suggested in Sefer Yehoshua (13:22), where Bilam is described as a "kosem" (magician). The Ramban, in his commentary to Parashat Balak (22:31), argues that Bilam was a sorcerer whom God temporarily granted prophetic powers for purposes of blessing Benei Yisrael. The Ramban proves his theory from the fact that God had to "open Bilam's eyes" to allow him to see the angel blocking the donkey's path – something that would not have been necessary were Bilam to have been a true prophet.

Many differences exist between sorcerer and prophet, one of them being the issue of latitude. A sorcerer is bound by the laws governing this science, but within that range he can apply his powers freely. A prophet, by contrast, can act only at the will of God, he is an instrument in the Almighty's hand and can deliver only the message revealed to him. According to the Ramban, it appears, God elevated Bilam to the status of prophet in order to tie his hands, to force him to bless the nation he was summoned to curse.

In effect, then, it was the institution of prophecy that restrained Bilam and prevented the curse from befalling Benei Yisrael. If, at some point, they reject prophecy, they scorn God's messengers and refuse His direct, supernatural involvement in human affairs expressed through prophecy, then Bilam's blessings becomes curse once again; the prophet turns back into a sorcerer, and his intended curses can now take effect.

Perhaps this explains the association between the story of Elisha and Bilam's attempt to curse Benei Yisrael. The children of Bet-El scorned the new prophet. As Yigal Ariel suggests in his "Mikdash Melekh," they challenge Elisha's qualifications as successor to Elisha, they deem him unworthy of donning Eliyahu's cloak and serving as the prophet of Israel. By rejecting prophecy, they lose the protection from Bilam's curses. Without prophecy, Bilam could indeed curse Benei Yisrael through his powers of sorcery, and hence the forty-two children were killed.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il