Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT Balak

by Rav David Silverberg

            The Gemara in Masekhet Bava Batra (14b) goes through each book of the Tanakh and identifies its author.  While this list is generally straightforward, one sentence requires clarification: "Moshe wrote his book [the five books of the Torah] and the parasha of Bilam…"  The Gemara here singles out Parashat Balak, the story of Balak and Bilam's attempt to curse Benei Yisrael, and appears to consider it separate from the rest of Chumash.  What does the Gemara mean?  If we are already told that Moshe wrote the entire Chumash, why does the Gemara add that he also wrote "the parasha of Bilam"?

            The Ritva, in his commentary to Bava Batra, approvingly cites an explanation claiming that the Gemara here does not refer to the narrative of Parashat Balak.  "Parashat Bilam" means not this parasha, but rather some other text.  As Rav David Mandelbaum suggests in his Pardes Yosef He-chadash, the Ritva here probably refers to a theory that appears in a later work – the Sefer Tziyoni (by Rav Menachem Ben Meir Tziyoni).  This theory claims that Moshe composed a lengthy work describing the entire episode of Balak and Bilam in greater detail, but this work was lost.  Interestingly, Rav Mandelbaum notes that in the Munich edition of the Talmud, the text of the aforementioned Gemara reads, "sefer Bilam" rather than "parashat Bilam," perhaps implying that the Gemara refers to a book, rather than a section in the Chumash.  This would certainly lend support to this theory cited by the Ritva.  Furthermore, the Gemara in Masekhet Sanhedrin (106b) records that a certain heretic read in "the pinkas [ledger, booklet] of Bilam" a description of the events surrounding Bilam's death.  Rav Mandelbaum speculates that this, too, might refer to the lost book composed by Moshe telling of the incident of Bilam and Balak.  (However, in the commentary to Masekhet Avot attributed to Rashi (5:19), a different text of this Gemara appears, according to which the heretic read this information not in a book, but on Bilam's tombstone.)

            A different approach is cited in the name of Rav Chayim of Brisk.  The Sifrei in Parashat Vezot Heberakha, commenting on the verse, 'There never again arose a prophet like Moshe" (Devarim 34:10), writes that only among Am Yisrael was there never a prophet of equal stature with Moshe.  Among the gentiles, however, there indeed lived such a prophet – Bilam.  Many writers have endeavored to explain this comparison between two seemingly incomparable men – Moshe and Bilam, and tomorrow we will iy"H present two such explanations.  Rav Chayim, however, suggests that Chazal here compare not the two men, but the nature of their prophecies.  Moshe's prophecy was unique in that it attained the formal status of "Torah," a status with its own, distinct properties that set it apart from standard prophecy.  (Rav Soloveitchik elaborated on this fundamental difference between Moshe's prophecies and those of other prophets in his famous eulogy for his uncle, Rav Yitzchak Zev; see "Divrei Hagot Ve-ha'arakha," pp. 65-68.)  Similarly, Bilam's prophecies were incorporated into the Chumash with this same status.  They did not remain mere prophecies; they became part of the actual body of Torah.  Why was this the case?  Why did Bilam earn this privilege of having his prophetic blessings to Am Yisrael become part of their Torah?  Rashi, in his commentary to this parasha (22:5), cites from a Midrash that God granted prophecy to a gentile so that the other nations could not claim, "If we had prophets, we would have returned to proper conduct."  God granted prophecy to a gentile to demonstrate that this would not improve the conduct of the pagan nations.  Bilam's attempt to use his prophetic powers to bring about death and destruction showed that the pagans were undeserving of this gift.  Rav Chayim claimed that in order to dispel this argument, God had to grant a gentile the same level of prophecy as Moshe; therefore, Bilam was given the opportunity to prophesy and have his prophecies included as part of Torah.

            This, Rav Chayim suggests, explains why the Gemara singled out "parashat Bilam."  The rest of Torah was written by Moshe, who thereby endowed it with the formal status of "Torah."  Bilam's prophecies, however, possessed this quality and status even before Moshe wrote them down.  Thus, his writing of "parashat Bilam" differs fundamentally from that of the rest of the Torah, and the Gemara therefore speaks of them separately.

David Silverberg

*****

            Yesterday, we mentioned and briefly discussed the famous "comparison" drawn by the Sifrei between Moshe, the greatest of the prophets, and Bilam, the corrupt sorcerer who attempted to place a curse on Benei Yisrael, as recorded in Parashat Balak.  Commenting on the Torah's assertion that "There never again arose a prophet like Moshe" (Devarim 34:10), the Sifrei writes, "Among Yisrael there never arose, but among the gentile nations there did arise – Bilam."  Meaning, although the Jewish people would never produce a prophet like Moshe, the pagan nations did – Bilam.  In what way is Bilam comparable to Moshe?  How could Chazal speak of Bilam as Moshe's equal?  Yesterday we looked at one explanation; today we will present two others.

            Rav Moshe Leib Shachor, in his "Avnei Shoham," suggests an approach based on a careful reading of the Rambam's discussion of prophecy in his Hilkhot Yesodei Ha-Torah (chapter 7).  The Rambam begins by outlining the various preconditions for receiving prophecy, which include wisdom, a stellar personality and complete control over physical drives.  Prophecy thus requires immense preparation; to reach the level of prophet, a person must work to elevate himself spiritually to the point where he is worthy of beholding a prophetic vision.  After outlining the basic requirements and properties of prophecy in the first five halakhot of this chapter, the Rambam then writes in halakha 7, "Everything we have said refers to the manner of prophecy of all the prophets, both the early and late prophets, with the exception of Moshe Rabbenu, the master of all the prophets."  The Rambam then proceeds to delineate the differences between Moshe's prophecy and that of other prophets.  The Avnei Shoham suggests that although the Rambam does not say so explicitly, Moshe and other prophets differed also with respect to the prerequisite preparation.  Moshe's singular level of prophecy was not something that could be earned.  No human being, including Moshe himself, could rise to the spiritual level rendering him worthy of such an intense, direct experience of prophecy.  Although Moshe may have exceeded the other prophets in terms of spiritual perfection, the unique quality of his prophecy came to him as a gift, rather than as something he earned.

            Herein, suggests the Avnei Shoham, lies the point of resemblance between Moshe and Bilam.  Bilam did not earn prophecy; God granted him this power, as we saw yesterday, to prove that even if the pagans had a prophet in their midst their conduct would not have been improved (see Rashi, in his commentary to this parasha – 22:5).  In this respect, of an undeserved prophetic experience, Moshe and Bilam are comparable.

            The Chatam Sofer, in his "Torat Moshe" to Parashat Vezot Haberakha, suggests a particularly novel approach to Chazal's comparison between Moshe and Bilam.  In Parashat Vezot Haberakha, after testifying that there would never again be a prophet like Moshe, the Torah writes, "for the various signs and portents that the Lord sent him to display in the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his courtiers and his whole country" (34:11).  The Chatam Sofer suggests that only in this respect did Bilam equal Moshe – in the ability to bring destruction and ruin upon a nation, as Moshe did to Egypt.  Chazal tell that Bilam had placed a curse upon Moav, which allowed the otherwise inferior nation of Emori to conquer half its territory (see Rashi, 22:6, based on the Midrash Tanchuma).  Now, had it not been for God's intervention, he would have placed a similar curse upon Benei Yisrael to enable Moav to destroy them.  Indeed, Bilam was endowed with extraordinary prophetic powers, but only for a single purpose: to wreak havoc and destruction.  These powers indeed equaled Moshe's powers of destruction, as manifest in Egypt, but it goes without saying that for purposes of spirituality, Godliness and sanctity, Bilam not only did not rival Moshe, but was situated at the opposite end of the spectrum.

            The basic idea expressed here by the Chatam Sofer, that Bilam's capacity was limited to cursing and destroying, appears already in Seforno's commentary to this parasha (22:6).  Seforno claims that although Balak tells Bilam, "For I know that he whom you bless is blessed indeed, and he whom you curse is cursed," in truth, Bilam had no power to bless. Balak makes this remark in an attempt at adulation, but he knew that Bilam was capable only of cursing, not bestowing blessing.  For this reason, Seforno writes, Balak hired Bilam specifically to place a curse upon Benei Yisrael, rather than to bestow a blessing upon Moav.  Since Bilam's powers were limited to destruction, Balak could not ask him to bless Moav with protection and military might, but only to wish death and destruction upon Am Yisrael.

David Silverberg

*****

            Parashat Balak tells that as Bilam made his way to Moav with the intention of placing a curse upon Benei Yisrael, an angel made himself visible to Bilam's donkey.  In three instances, the donkey beheld the angel and therefore could not proceed along the route he was to travel.  In the second instance (22:24-25), Bilam rode his donkey through a narrow path, with a fence on either side.  When the donkey noticed the angel blocking the path, it veered to the side, crushing Bilam's leg against the wall.  (According to the Gemara in Masekhet Sanhedrin 105a, this injury permanently handicapped Bilam; see Rashbam to 22:25 and 23:3.)  Commenting on this incident, Chizkuni writes that the wall against which Bilam's leg was crushed was actually the wall erected by Yaakov as a sign of his truce with his father-in-law, Lavan (Bereishit 31; end of Parashat Vayetze).  Yaakov and Lavan agreed that neither side – or their offspring – would cross this wall to do the other harm.  Bilam, whom the Gemara identifies as Lavan (while other sources claim that Bilam was a son or grandson of Lavan), violated this truce by crossing this point to place a curse upon Yaakov's descendants.  Appropriately, Bilam's leg is crushed against this wall.

            Similarly, Rashi, in his commentary to Sefer Tehillim (60:1), cites a Midrash that tells that when King David went to wage war against the nation of Aram (see Shemuel II, chapter 8), the Aramites invoked the ancient treaty between Lavan and Yaakov for their protection.  They argued that the truce was still in effect, and it was therefore forbidden for David to initiate hostilities against Aram.  David took the matter to the Sanhedrin, and suggested to them that Aram had already violated the treaty when Bilam came to curse Benei Yisrael, and again later, during the early period of the shoftim (judges), when the Aramite king Kushan Rishatayim oppressed Benei Yisrael (see Shoftim 3:8).  The Sanhedrin accepted David's appeal and ruled that given Aram's breach of the treaty, it was no longer valid.

            We might add that the crushing of Bilam's leg against this historic wall perhaps bears even deeper significance.  Besides forming the separation boundary between the two foes, this wall also symbolized Benei Yisrael's separation from Lavan and everything he represented.  Yaakov erected this barrier when he made his way back to his homeland, Eretz Canaan, after an extended stay in Lavan's home.  This wall, then, might be symbolic of Yaakov's physical and spiritual separation from the world of Lavan – the world of compulsive materialism, corruption, and selfishness.

            This symbolic quality of the wall might add meaning to the story of Bilam's injury.  Bilam is crushed – defeated and outdone, by this wall – by the barrier that separates Benei Yisrael from his world, from their refusal to identify in any way with his lifestyle.

            Indeed, when God forces Bilam to bless the people rather than place a curse, he begins by exclaiming, "How can I curse whom God has not cursed, how doom when the Lord has not doomed?  As I see them from the mountain tops, gaze on them from the heights, there is a people that dwells apart, not reckoned among the nations" (23:8-9).  What exactly does Bilam mean when he describes Benei Yisrael here as "a people that dwells apart"?  Ibn Ezra here refers us to his commentary to Parashat Haazinu (Devarim 32:8), where he explains this verse to mean that Benei Yisrael's fate does not depend on the same forces that determine the fates of other peoples.  We might add that this verse might also refer to Benei Yisrael's insularity, their refusal to succumb to the cultural and religious pressures from the outside.  When Benei Yisrael retain their distinctiveness and commitment to their faith, ignoring the cultural winds blowing all around them, then, as Ibn Ezra writes, they are not subject to the forces that affect other peoples.  They live by different rules, enjoying the unique, direct protection of the Almighty.  (See Netziv's commentary to these verses, where he explains in a similar vein.)

            It indeed turns out, then, that the "wall" separating Yaakov from Lavan "crushed" and incapacitated Bilam.  His sorcery was of no avail as he attempted to destroy Benei Yisrael, because they never crossed the boundary, they remained "a people that dwells apart."  Therefore, the spell that Bilam could cast upon other nations were wholly ineffective when it came to Benei Yisrael, for their fate was determined directly by the Almighty, rather than the forces to which all other nations were subject.

David Silverberg

*****

            Yesterday we briefly mentioned Bilam's exclamation towards the beginning of his first blessing recorded in Parashat Balak: "Ma ekov lo kabo Kel."  The straightforward reading of these words is, "How can I curse whom God has not cursed?"  Bilam declares that he cannot possibly fulfill Balak's wish to curse Benei Yisrael because God does not want them to be cursed.

            The Keli Yakar, however, suggests a homiletic reading of this verse, to mean, "How can I curse the one who does not curse God?"  Most nations react with resentment to monarchs or pagan gods who deal too harshly with them or under whose rule troubles occasionally surface.  But Am Yisrael is different.  Even when the Almighty appears to treat them harshly, to judge them strictly and allow misfortunes to befall them, they do not resort to blasphemy, they do not turn their backs on Him and reject Him.  Therefore, since they do not allow themselves to curse God, He will not allow them to be cursed, either.  Even if Bilam could find some demerit rendering Benei Yisrael technically deserving of a curse, he is unable to place a curse upon them.  For just as they patiently and tolerantly accept God's seemingly harsh judgment with love and faith, so does the Almighty tolerate their wrongdoing and retain His faith, so-to-speak, in their ultimate repentance and return.

            Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, adds that this concept can help explain a famous Talmudic passage in Masekhet Berakhot (20b).  The Gemara tells that the ministering angels questioned the propriety of the final verse of birkat kohanim (the priestly blessing), which expresses the wish that God shall "bestow His favor" upon Benei Yisrael.  This term, "nesi'at panim" ("showing favor"), connotes favoring another beyond what he strictly deserves.  The angels noted that in Sefer Devarim (10:17), Moshe explicitly informs Benei Yisrael that God will never "show favor" in this sense: "For the Lord your God is… the great, the mighty and the awesome God, who shows no favor and takes no bribe."  How, then, can God favor Benei Yisrael beyond what they deserve?  God replied, so-to-speak, to the angels, "Shall I not show favor to Israel, to whom I wrote in the Torah, 'You will eat and be satiated, and you shall bless the Lord your God,' but they have taken it upon themselves [to bless God] even over a ke-zayit and a ke-beitza?'"  The Torah requires reciting birkat ha-mazon after eating to satiation, but Benei Yisrael have taken it upon themselves to recite birkat ha-mazon over even lesser amounts – a ke-beitza and a ke-zayit.  They are therefore deserving of "nesi'at panim" – divine favor.

            Why does this particular stringency that Benei Yisrael took upon themselves render them worthy of God's favor?  Rav Ginsburg suggests that the Gemara refers to situations where the Jew cannot afford enough food for satiation, where all he has to eat is a ke-zayit or a ke-beitza.  The Jewish people have demonstrated throughout their history the ability and willingness to genuinely thank the Almighty for what they have, even when they don't have much.  God is therefore prepared to show us favor, to reward us for the little we've accomplished and the merits that we've earned, even when they don't amount to very much.  And for this reason, according to the Keli Yakar, Bilam felt unable to place a curse on Benei Yisrael: "How can I curse the one who does not curse God?"  Since Benei Yisrael remain loyal to the Almighty even during periods of hardship, He, in turn, will provide them with protection and blessing, even if they are undeserving.

David Silverberg

*****

            In his second blessing to Benei Yisrael, Bilam describes them as "a people that rises like a lion, leaps up like the king of beasts" (23:24).  Rashi, based on the Midrash Tanchuma, interprets this analogy as a reference to Benei Yisrael's enthusiastic rush to perform mitzvot each morning.  He writes, "When they arise from their sleep in the morning, they strengthen themselves like a lion to grab mitzvot – to wear tzitzit, to recite shema, and to lay tefillin."  Many writers have noted the peculiarity in the sequence of Rashi's list of mitzvot.  As we know, one first wears his tzitzit and tefillin and only thereafter recites shema.  In fact, a brief discussion in Masekhet Berakhot (14b) explicitly requires reciting the morning shema while wearing tefillin (with the obvious exception of Shabbat and Yom Tov, when tefillin are not worn).  The Gemara even cites the comment of Ula that "whoever recites shema without tefillin is considered as rendering false testimony" about the Almighty.  By failing to observe the commandments mentioned in the shema, the individual gives the appearance of seeing little meaning in what he recites.  Rabbi Yochanan is then quoted as commenting that someone who recites shema without tefillin is comparable to a person who offers a sacrifice without the accompanying meal offering or libation required with the sacrifice.

            Why, then, did Rashi list the mitzva of shema before the mitzva of tefillin, implying that one may recite shema before laying tefillin?  (In certain, rare editions of Rashi's commentary, he indeed lists shema after tzitzit and tefillin, but in the vast majority of editions the text follows the version that appears in the standard editions we have today.)

            Several Acharonim, including the famous "Chozeh" of Lublin (cited in responsa Beit Yitzchak, O.C. 17) and Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson, suggest that the prohibition against reciting shema without tefillin applies only if one has no intention of putting on tefillin later.  They prove this theory from the comparison drawn by Rabbi Yochanan between reciting shema without tefillin and offering a sacrifice without the accompanying mincha (meal offering) or nesakhim (wine libations).  The Rambam explicitly rules (Hilkhot Ma'aseh Ha-korbanot 2:12) that a person may bring a sacrifice and offer the mincha or nesakhim at a later time.  Therefore, if the Gemara forbids reciting shema before wearing tefillin and likens this prohibition to offering a sacrifice without its mincha or nesakhim, then it must refer to reciting shema without any intention of wearing tefillin.  Thus, for example, the Gemara tells that Rav once had to wait for someone to bring his tefillin and feared that if he waited any longer the final time for shema would pass.  He therefore recited shema before his tefillin arrived.  Since he clearly intended to wear tefillin later, he was not in violation of this rule and was allowed to recite shema without tefillin.  Similarly, the widespread practice is to refrain from wearing tefillin on the morning of Tisha B'Av, as an expression of grief and mourning, and to wear them instead in the afternoon (Shulchan Arukh, O.C. 555:1).  This does not violate the prohibition against reciting shema before wearing tefillin because we obviously have every intention of wearing them later.

            This could perhaps explain why Rashi listed the mitzva of shema before tefillin, because when a person has in mind to wear tefillin later, he may, in fact, recite shema first.  Indeed, some sources point to this passage in Rashi's commentary as a basis for the practice of some sects of Chasidim to recite shema immediately upon awakening in the morning, so as to ensure not to delay its recitation until after the final time for shema.

            A different approach to this halakha was taken by the Levush, as cited by the Mishna Berura (46:33 and 65:8).  The Levush indicates that the prohibition against reciting shema before wearing tefillin applies anytime a person intentionally deviates from the preferable sequence.  Even if one plans on wearing tefillin later, he still violates this halakha if he first recites shema for no valid reason.  Only under extenuating circumstances, such as in the case of Rav, who ran the risk of missing the deadline for shema if he waited for his tefillin, may one recite shema before laying tefillin.

            According to this view, it would seem that we could not accept the aforementioned explanation for the sequence in Rashi's list, where shema appears before the mitzva of tefillin.

David Silverberg

*****

            Parashat Balak tells of Bilam's unsuccessful attempts to place a curse on Benei Yisrael.  Before taking leave of Balak, the Moavite king who had summoned him to place the curse, Bilam prophesies of a period in the future when Benei Yisrael will achieve world power and subdue all their foes, including Moav (24:17-24).  We find different views among the commentators as to which period in Jewish history Bilam describes.  Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni maintain that this entire prophecy speaks of the time of King David, when Benei Yisrael, under David's leadership, establish themselves for the first time as the most powerful nation in the region.  (However, Ibn Ezra understands the final verse of this prophecy as a reference to a later period – the rise and fall of the Assyrian empire.)  By contrast, the Ramban, Rashbam and Seforno explain that Bilam here prophesies about the Messianic era.  A third approach is taken by Rashi, who interprets the first two verses as a reference to King David, and the remainder of the prophecy as foreseeing Messianic times. 

The Rambam, in Hilkhot Melakhim (11), also divides this prophecy, only in a different manner.  He goes through the first two verses of this prophecy and shows how it alternates between these two periods, of David and Mashiach (or, as the Rambam calls them, the "two Mashiachs").  For example, in verse 17, "What I see for them is not yet" refers to David, and the immediately following clause, "what I behold will not be soon" refers to Mashiach.  "A star rises from Yaakov" describes King David, whereas "a scepter comes forth from Israel" speaks of the Messiah, and so on.  Accordingly, the Rambam points to Bilam's prophecy as one of the two Biblical sources for the concept of a Mashiach, the other being in Sefer Devarim (30).  Hence, the Rambam considers anyone who denies this tenet of faith as denying the Torah itself.

            The Or Ha-chayim, in his commentary, presents a particularly fascinating explanation of these verses.  He, like the Rambam, reads the prophecy in alternating fashion, with each pair of adjacent clauses referring to two different periods.  However, the Or Ha-chayim believes that Bilam describes not two historical periods that are guaranteed to unfold, but rather two possible models of the Messianic era.  The prophet Yeshayahu (60:22) declares in the name of God, "be-ita achishena" – literally, "I will bring it [the redemption] quickly in its time."  Chazal famously explain that these two words allude to two different possibilities: "be-ita" and "achishena."  "Be-ita" refers to a deadline, at which point the Almighty will bring the redemption regardless of Benei Yisrael's worthiness.  If, however, we are deserving of redemption earlier, then God will "bring it quickly" – "achishena" - He will usher in the Messianic era even before this deadline.  According to the Or Ha-chayim, Bilam's final prophecy foresees both possibilities.  "What I see for them is not yet" means that what Bilam foresees will occur at some point in the future, though not necessarily in the distant future.  This refers to the prospect of "achishena."  The second phrase, "what I behold will not be soon," which explicitly speaks of an event in the very distant future, describes the redemption unfolding only "be-ita," when Benei Yisrael are undeserving of Mashiach, but it will arrive anyway.

            The continuation of this verse, the Or Ha-chayim explains, tells that these two models differ not only in time, but in form, as well.  If the redemption arrives in merit of Benei Yisrael's repentance, then "A star rises from Yaakov."  As Rashi explains in his commentary, this phrase ("Darakh kokhav mi-Yaakov") invokes the symbol of a shooting star.  The Or Ha-chayim claims that this alludes to an extraordinary, supernatural display of power with which Mashiach will ascend the stage of Jewish history to save the Jewish people from its foes.  If Benei Yisrael earn redemption, it will unfold miraculously, in spectacular fashion.  If, however, the redemption arrives "be-ita," only because the final time has arrived, then "a scepter comes forth from Israel" – Israel will form a government like other nations.  There will be no "shooting star," no supernatural manifestation of might, but rather the establishment of an ordinary government, with all the shortcomings and flaws of political institutions.

            In a similar vein, the Malbim, in his commentary to Sefer Mikha (4:8), describes how the redemption process will begin with a less-than-spectacular state and government, which will ultimately develop into the Messianic kingdom.  He writes:

"The exiles will begin to gather… and thereafter 'the first government will come' – a small government will emerge; they will have some semblance of government and leadership like Israel had in the early days, before a king arose for Benei Yisrael, when they had judges ruling over them.  Thereafter… they will have a permanent kingship, i.e. the kingdom of the House of David, for afterward the Messianic king will reign with a permanent kingdom.  It is similarly stated clearly in Yechezkel… that the kingdom of the House of David will be revealed in stages.  In the beginning it will be only on the level of judge, but will gradually grow until kingship shall be the Lord's."

David Silverberg

*****

            We read in Parashat Balak that before each of Bilam's failed attempts at cursing Benei Yisrael, he and Balak offered sacrifices.  The Gemara tells (Sanhedrin 105b) that Balak was rewarded for offering all these sacrifices by becoming the great grandfather of Rut.  Chazal identify Rut as the daughter of Eglon, the wicked king of Moav described in Sefer Shoftim (3), who was a grandson of Balak.  Rut, of course, was an exceptionally pious woman who converted to Judaism and became the matriarch of the Davidic royal dynasty.  Balak earned this illustrious progeny through the merit of the many sacrifices he offered.  Of course, as the Gemara notes, Balak had less than noble intentions when he brought these offerings.  The sacrifices he offered with Bilam did not express any deep-seated religious conviction or thirst for a relationship with God.  Why, then, was he rewarded?  The Gemara answers that the story of Balak demonstrates the famous principle that "a person shall always occupy himself in Torah and mitzvot, even she-lo li-shma [not purely for its own sake], for by performing she-lo li-shma he will come to perform li-shma [for its sake]."  Balak's reward shows that even religious acts performed she-lo li-shma are of value, insofar as they lead a person to eventually practice and observe li-shma.

            Tosefot in Maskhet Pesachim (50b) note that this principle appears to contradict a different comment in the Gemara, which looks far less favorably upon Torah study she-lo lishma: "Whoever occupies himself in Torah she-lo li-shma – it would have been preferable for him to not have been created" (Berakhot 17a).  How can the Gemara encourage study and practice on the level of she-lo li-shma, while elsewhere condemning this type of learning in the harshest of terms?  Tosefot resolve this contradiction by distinguishing between two different types of "she-lo li-shma."  The Gemara there in Pesachim discusses the prohibition against performing significant work late Friday afternoon (when one is supposed to be involved in Shabbat preparations).  It comments that people who in any event never work even during the week nevertheless receive reward for refraining from work on Erev Shabbat.  Despite the fact that they did not sincerely intend to observe the halakha, they are rewarded nonetheless.  This type of she-lo li-shma observance, Tosefot explain, indeed yields reward.  The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot, by contrast, refers to a person who learns Torah specifically with the intention of using his knowledge to argue, to challenge the rabbis, and to receive honor.  If this is what the student has in mind, then "it would have been preferable for him to not have been created."  But when an individual learns or performs for some neutral ulterior motive, then he is rewarded even though he has fallen short of the ideal of li-shma.

            The Maharsha, in his commentary to Masekhet Horiyot (10b), questions this explanation of Tosefot in light of the Gemara's comment regarding Balak.  Recall that the Gemara saw God's reward to Balak as a source for this principle that one should involve himself in Torah and mitzvot even she-lo li-shma.  Clearly, however, Balak's motives behind offering the sacrifices were hardly neutral.  He offered these sacrifices in order to allow Bilam to curse Benei Yisrael, which would in turn allow Balak to destroy them.  According to Tosefot's distinction, Balak should not have been deserving of any reward.

            The Maharsha suggests that Balak was rewarded because ultimately, he was driven by fear.  He summoned Bilam to place a curse upon Benei Yisrael not out of sheer hatred, but out of fear that Benei Yisrael would "lick clean all that is about us as an ox licks up the grass in the field" (22:4).  Therefore, me may still consider him "neutral" in a certain sense.  We should note, however, that other writers claimed that Balak's desire to curse Benei Yisrael stemmed not only from fear, but also from genuine animosity towards Am Yisrael.  The Chatam Sofer, for example, noted that the parasha's second verse appears to point to two different feelings in Moav regarding Benei Yisrael: "Moav was alarmed because that people was so numerous"; "Moav was repulsed by Benei Yisrael."  These two clauses, the Chatam Sofer claimed, refer to fear and sheer hatred, both of which prompted Balak to seek ways to destroy them.

            The Netziv, in one of his responsa (Meishiv Davar, 1:44), makes an obvious but important observation concerning the concept of she-lo li-shma as it applied to Balak.  In this letter, the Netziv urges the observant Jewish community to establish as many programs and institutions of Torah learning as possible to combat the rampant secularization in Eastern Europe at the time.  In so doing, he emphasizes the importance of bringing people to study even if they do so for ulterior motives, and do not necessarily come with a sincere desire to learn.  The Netziv comments that generally, we interpret the Gemara to mean that a person should study and perform she-lo li-shma because gradually he will grow to the point where he studies and observes on the level of li-shma.  However, the story of Balak proves that this in incorrect.  As far as we know, Balak never in his life offered a sacrifice li-shma; his religious activity performed she-lo li-shma did not result in his sincere worship.  And yet, God rewarded him for these sacrifices even though they never elevated him to the next level.  It was only several generations later, when his great granddaughter was born, that this level was reached.  This shows, the Netziv writes, that a person should occupy himself in Torah and mitzvot even if he personally will never achieve the level of li-shma, for this level will eventually be attained, if not by him, then by his descendants.

David Silverberg

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

(c) Yeshivat Har Etzion2002 All rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion

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