The Lubavitcher Rebbe answers that even the lowest elements need to be included in the Torah because ultimately these evil forces will be transformed into a force for good. Furthermore, notes the Rebbe, the parshiot of Chukas and Balak are usually read together on the same Shabbos, making the point that both the righteous (Chukas) and the ba’al teshuva (Balak) are possible paths for embracing God.
Bilaam’s Departure Triggers Divine Wrath
King Balak sends messengers to Bilaam to invite him to curse the Israelites. Bilaam asks these emissaries to wait overnight. In a dream, God tells him unequivocally not to go because the Jews are blessed. Balak, reasoning that Bilaam is holding out for a larger fee, sends more prominent nobles offering more money. Bilaam has a second dream in which God tells him “Since it is to call you that the men have come, go with them”.
The exalted prophet, without waiting for his servants, rushes the next morning at daybreak to saddle his own donkey himself— “hasin’a mekalkeles es hashura” [“hatred distorts one’s dignified behavior”]. God becomes angry when he sees Bilaam leaving with Balak’s emissaries. The question is why, since He told Bilaam it was okay to go!
o Some commentaries reason that since God knows what is in the deepest recesses of one’s mind and heart He knew that Bilaam’s plan was to not follow His demand to not curse the Israelites.
o Others think that the cause of God’s anger can be found in the words “Ki holech who” (because Balaam is going). The use of the present form (holech) hints at Balaam’s (on)going, constant single-minded desire to curse Israel.
o Still others believe that Bilaam erred in his failure to immediately act on God’s permission to go (“kum laych etam”). Instead, he waited until the next morning.
Rabbi B.S. Jacobson cites other explanations:
Rabbi Isaac Erama (1420-1494) notes that Bilaam should have categorically refused Balak’s invitation the first time knowing full well that the request was totally unacceptable to God. When he pestered God a second time, God became angry but allowed him to [thinking that Bilaam would not] follow his malicious urge and allowed him to make a fool of himself in the eyes of those he sought so desperately to impress.
Ramban (1194-1270) and Seforno (1475-1550) interpret “Em likro lecha…” to mean “if the intent was to be only a consultant or advisor, then go with them”. Bilaam should have told them of his limited role and capabilities. Instead he chose to participate with Balak in cursing the Israelites.
Rav Jacob Tzvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865) thinks that when God tells Bilaam he can go, the Torah uses the phrase “lech eetam” meaning to just walk along, separate from them—a formal accompaniment out of respect. Similarly, the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) explains that the phrase “lech eetam” means to go but not to do precisely what they want. Instead, Bilaam gets up early, “Vayelech eem…” (“…and he went with”). The Hebrew word eem (instead of eetam) communicates that when Bilaam went he was of one mind with them to curse the Israelite nation.
A Talking Donkey
Bilaam saddles his donkey for the trip to King Balak. Invisible to him but apparently visible to the donkey he is riding on is a messenger/Angel of God standing on the road with an unsheathed sword in his hand, blocking passage. [Note: animals have the unique ability to sense danger that is not apparent to humans. Perhaps this is what is meant by the words, “the donkey saw”.] When the donkey swerves from the road and goes into the adjacent field Bilaam strikes the animal to get it back on the road. Bilaam finds himself on an increasingly narrow path surrounded on both sides by what is described in the text as a “fence” on either side but was likely a low stone wall. When the donkey presses against the wall in the narrowing road, Bilaam strikes it a second time.
When the donkey, unable to move forward because of the blocked road, lies down, Bilaam’s wrath flares and he hits the donkey again, this time with a stick. God “opens the donkey’s mouth” and it says, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” Apparently untroubled by the sight and sound of a talking donkey, Bilaam answers “Because you have toyed with me. Had I a sword in my hand, by now I would have killed you! The donkey responds: “Am I not your donkey upon whom you have ridden your whole life till this day? Have I ever been wont to do thus to you?” Bilaam responds “No”. God “opens” Bilaam’s eyes and he is then able to see the messenger/angel in the road.
Flavius Josephus, the first century Romano-Jewish historian, cited by Rabbi J.H. Hertz, notes that “…in regard to its narrative, readers are free to think what they please”…
• Nothing is impossible for God.
• Perkei Avos teaches us that this talking donkey was created on day six of Creation, just before sunset, as God’s creative activity drew to a close. This is one of the “miracles” that were incorporated into the Divine cosmic plan to be brought forth at the appropriate time. The idea is that one may discover the reign of universal law through the exceptions. “Miracles are a part of the order of the world, bound to appear in due time much as apparently erratic comets come.” (Israel Zangwill)
• Rambam (1135-1204) and Saddya Gaon (882-942), noting Bilaam’s seeming lack of surprise at a talking animal, think that the incident was a prophetic dream or a night vision.
• Shadal (1800-1865) points out that the text does not say the donkey spoke only that God opened the mouth of the donkey. This braying donkey and an at-first-invisible Angel may be a projective identification on Bilaam’s part, employing words and dialogue that reflect his anger and internal struggle over whether to go and curse the Israelites.
• The imagery of a narrowing path may mean, psychologically, that as he travelled along, Bilaam began to narrow his options, becoming increasingly aware that he really wanted to curse the Israelites, despite God’s command not to. This resentment and rage at God’s instructions, may have manifest itself in the beating of the closest thing at hand, his donkey.
• Torah’s mockery of human gullibility, of those believing in magic. The mighty prophet Bilaam with his sorcerer’s power is reduced to arguing with a talking donkey without expressing any surprise at this phenomenon and unable to see what the donkey perceived. Picture the man and his animal arguing and the animal prevailing in his reasoning! The Torah wishes to discredit superstition and belief in magic. The lesson to be learned is that only God has the power.
• The Torah tells of only two talking beasts. The talking donkey addresses its master to save him, in contrast to the talking snake in the Garden of Eden that sought to persuade Eve to sin.
• Bilaam was given free choice. The Midrash notes that “whatever direction Man chooses to go, he is helped along” by God.
• This is a Parsha of “Reversals”, according to Professor Everett Foxx, in that…
A donkey becomes a kind of prophet
A prophet turns into a fool
Curses turn into blessings
• Linkage of Israel’s blessings with military successes (in last week’s Parsha) …Israel’s behavior at Baal-Peor is linked to Bilaam’s insidious advice.
• Recurring phrases and words:
1. Bilaam “I can only do whatever God says”
2. The Hebrew root word YSF, to resume/start anew. Franz Rosenzweig notes how the Torah uses the “device of recurring cues” to highlight for us the duplicity/arrogance of Bilaam in thinking that by waiting and by asking again he can sway God to modify or reverse His unequivocal opposition to Balak’s proposal:
• Balak resumes sending more honorable messengers after Bilaam rebuffs the first delegation.
• Bilaam tells the second, more impressive delegation to bide their time until God resumes the dialogue.
• Later in the incident of the talking donkey Bilaam resumes striking the donkey (without giving a thought to the bizarreness of arguing with a talking animal) and…
• The unseen Angel of God resumes passing, standing in a narrow place, trying once again to save Bilaam from himself.
3. The phrase malach Hashem (Angel of God) appears ten times during Bilaam’s encounter with the talking donkey. The word malach means messenger. Perhaps the malach Hashem can be understood as the universal positive force within each of us emanating from God. Perhaps the repetition of the phrase is meant to enlighten us about God’s ongoing actions to get us back on track, should we wander off. Even though Bilaam chose the evil alternative (to curse the Jewish nation), Divinely-inspired forces are still at work to give him one last chance to change his mind.
Was Bilaam a Prophet or a Magician?
He appears to be a learned, well-known non-Jewish follower and legitimate prophet of God, and a person admired by some Jewish commentaries.
A Midrash notes that God gave prophecy to men like Bilaam and Job so that the other nations could not complain that God was only accessible to Israel.
Others see him as wicked, with his haughtiness, his greed, his being responsible for Israel’s “whoring” at Baal-Peor, and his attempt to “wait God out” to grant him permission to curse Israel. Nechama Leibowitz describes him as hankering after prophecy, striving through magical means to force it down from Heaven. He stands in contrast to the prophets of Israel who did not run after prophecy and often resisted its being granted to them.
Abravanel (1437-1508) thinks Bilaam evolved from a heathen seer to a true prophet. He initially pursues divination to bring God around to do his bidding, but ultimately is forced to bless the Israelites despite himself. In his first attempt, he introduces both theme and mission. He seems in awe of the historic continuity of the Israelites. On the second try he responds to his employer Balak’s complaints. He again attributes his prophetic abilities to himself, refusing to acknowledge that it is God Who puts words of blessing and not curses into his mouth. On the third try he saw (i.e., realized and understood) that God cannot be influenced by sorcery and that it was His desire that Israel not be cursed. Bilaam’s attitude changes and without any preliminary invocation he spontaneously prophesizes blessings.
Rabbi Menachem Leibtag argues that initially Bilaam appears to be a God-fearing individual who twice informs Balak’s emissaries that he will not veer from God’s command not to curse the Israelites. But his true character becomes evident only after he leaves Balak to return to Mesopotamia. It appears that after returning home he then makes the long journey back to Moav where he advises Balak to send the local women to seduce the Israelite men to pagan worship. Although he was unable to curse the Israelites, he shrewdly reasoned that by causing the Israelites to sin he could trigger God’s wrath to punish/curse them. He mobilized his God-given capabilities for evil—in stark contrast to Avraham Avinu who used his resources for good. Furthermore, reasons Rabbi Leibtag, Israel’s existence and mandate to bring God and His ethics to the world represented a threat to Bilaam’s livelihood--his professional monopoly on communicating God’s message to the nations of world.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks cites Midrashim that praise Bilaam’s prophetic skills as being comparable to (or even greater than) Moshe’s. But Bilaam’s character flaw is in being a man without loyalties and without a people (Bilaam = “b’lo am” = “without a nation”). Because he had no commitments he was merely a “hired hand” whose services could be bought to be used without concern for justice or for the lives of those he affected. Rabbi Sacks concludes that Bilaam is the classic example of individuals who are endowed with extraordinary intellectual and spiritual gifts but whose pride and arrogance lead them to believe that they can get away with great crimes. Bilaam’ s plan “… to entice the Israelites into sin
even after he knew that God was on their side is a measure of how the greatest can sometimes fall to become the lowest of the low”.
Rabbi Günter Plaut cites the interpretation of W.F. Albright [American archaeologist, biblical scholar and philologist] who concludes that “Bilaam was really a Northern-Syrian diviner from the Euphrates valley, that he became a convert to Israel’s faith and later abandoned Israel and joined the Midianites in fighting against Israel.” Rabbi Plaut’s view is that the text is “less the tale of a pagan, be he prophet or sorcerer, than a paean of God and His affection for the children of Israel.”
When the two finally meet, Balak brings Bilaam to Bamos-baal, a place named for the pagan god of fertility and material plentitude.
Balak hoped to provoke Bilaam to attack the Israelites economically [Rav S.R. Hirsch]. At Bilaam’s instruction, seven altars are built, upon which are offered seven bullocks and seven rams. God communicates with Bilaam, and instructs him what to say; He “puts a word in Bilaam’s mouth”. Upon returning to meet Balak, Bilaam sees the camp of Israel and, impressed with the numbers, the power and the unity of the nation, launches into a beautiful poetic description of the historic continuity and uniqueness of the people of Israel including “Hain ahm l’vadad yishkon u’vagoyim lo yis’chashav” [“This is a people that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations”].
Unhappy with these words of blessing instead of the curses he expected, Balak brings Bilaam to the field of Zophim, where only a part of the nation will be visible [Zophim means watch or overlook]. Balak hopes that Bilaam will attack the Israelites’ spiritual power and foresight. Again, seven altars are constructed and offerings brought and again God contacts Bilaam and “put a word in his mouth”. Bilaam refers to Israel’s recent history and proclaims God’s strength vis a vis Balak who is merely a man. God remains resolute in his roles of Defender of and Dispenser-of-Blessings to His people. No magic can prevail against Israel: “Ki lo nachash b’Yaakov v’lo kesem b’Yisrael” [“No black magic can be effective against Jacob and no occult powers against Israel” or, alternatively, “there is no divination in Jacob and no sorcery in Israel”.] Furthermore, He causes to be announced what He plans to do: “Now it is said of Jacob and of Israel ‘what hath God wrought’.” [Note: the phrase in bold was the first telegraph message sent by inventor Samuel F.B. Morse on May 24,1844 over an experimental line from Washington, D.C. to Baltimore, Md. It was witnessed by members of Congress.]
An enraged Balak agrees to allow Bilaam one more chance and moves to the top of Peor, named after the pagan god of sexual license. It was Balak’s hope that somehow Bilaam would undermine the chastity and purity of the nation. Again, seven altars are built and offerings brought. But this time Bilaam--inspired by Ruach Ha’kodesh-- spontaneously prophesizes that no harm would befall the Israelites because of the purity of their family life: “Ma tovu ohalecha Yaakov, mishkenosecha Yisrael” [“Your tents are so good O Yaakov, your dwellings O Israel”]. An even more enraged Balak sends Bilaam packing. But before he leaves, Bilaam offers a vision of Israel’s future including “Darach kochav meYaakov, v’kam shevet meYisrael” (“A star shall shoot forth from Yaakov [King David? Messiah? metaphor for ordinary Jew? Bar Kochva?]; and a staff will arise from Israel”).
Both Balak and Bilaam then return to their respective homes.
Do Curses Work?
The ancients believed in the power of curses to arouse against a person those forces which were normally beyond human control. They were prayers to the deity asking for fulfillment of the petitioner’s wish.
Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz notes that the Babylonian/Mesopotamia religion was filled with demonology. Certain individuals had the power to change the will of the deities and to secure prosperity or bring on calamity via their spells and incantations. A magician/sorcerer/wizard could predict the future, discover secrets and either bless or bring ruin.
But the Torah discredits superstition and belief in magic. So why did God try to stop Bilaam or even care about his curses?
In answer of this question, Nechama Leibowitz cites…
• Many commentaries who think that stopping Bilaam’s evil plan was meant to teach him a lesson.
• Joseph Ibn Kaspi who notes the psychological (rather than actual) damage to the object of a curse.
• Abravanel who reasons that cursing the Israelites would have catalyzed the surrounding nations to do battle with Israel on the strength of these curses.
• Shadal’s view that Bilaam’s curses would have prompted Moav and its King Balak to boast of their success in warding off the Israelites.
• Anselm Astruc (author of Medreshei Torah commentary, who was murdered in an attack on the Jewish community of Barcelona in 1391) thinks that the inhabitants of the land (and even the Jews themselves) would always (incorrectly) attribute any of the Israel’s miseries to Bilaam’s curse.
A Timeless Message
The name Balak is related to another Hebrew word that means “anyone”. The name Bilaam can also mean “a man without faith” [blee emunah]. The story of these two men is the story of Anyman, anytime. It is the story of one who, perhaps lacking faith, seeks to harm others, to do evil, and to be excessively greedy and cruel. The optimistic message is that God in His mysterious and caring ways often seeks to block this self-destructive behavior [i.e., Bilaam’s dream communication from God]. And even if one still exercises one’s free choice and continues down this evil narrow path, God still offers another chance [i.e., Angel, a positive Divine force, blocking the narrow path Bilaam took].
When Bilaam finally prepares to curse the Israelites, God “puts a word in in Bilaam’s mouth”. Scholars debate the meaning of this expression:
• Some think that it means that he was guided from above not to curse the Israelites.
• Others maintain that it was like a hook put in the mouth of a fish. Bilaam struggled like a fish on a hook; he struggled to curse but was forced to say blessings despite himself.
During the first two parables, it is God that tells Bilaam what to say. But the third time, it is Bilaam who speaks spontaneously and positively about the nation of Israel and its future.
Bilaam resisted the Good, but it was divinely thrust upon him. By acting, behaving and speaking positively his character began to change to a point where he spoke positively of his own accord. Perhaps this is a living example of “Metoch shelo lishma, ba lishma” (“for out of not for its own sakecomes for its own sake”)—a lesson for us all.
“Hayn Aam L’vadad Yishkon Uvagoyem Lo Yischashav” (“This is a People That Shall Dwell Alone and Shall Not be Reckoned Among the Nations.”)
This vision of Bilaam proved to be borne out by the history of Israel. Some believe that this very apartness was a necessary means for the nation’s self-realization.
In his book The Prime Ministers, Yehudah Avner describes Prime Minister Begin’s Saturday night Bible study group and its discussion of the meaning of this verse:
• Golda Meir sees in this a prediction of Israel’s loneliness and absence of family at the United Nations
• Prof. Ephraim Auerbach interprets this as Israel’s voluntarily setting itself apart
• Nechama Leibowitz notes the grammar (reflexive form) makes the meaning does not reckon itself among the nations
• Prof. Yaakov Katz, citing Marcus Jastrow, interprets this to mean does not conspire against other nations
• Prof. Harel Fisch focuses on the uniqueness of Jewish people in blending Peoplehood (Exodus from Egypt) and religion (Mt Sinai experience). This uniqueness distinguishes Jewish people from other nations and, therefore, we will always dwell alone.
• Srulik opines that Bilaam’s prophecy, no matter how understood, stamps the Jewish nation as eternally abnormal among nations—undermining the Zionist dream of our being “normal” like all other nations.
• Dr. Chaim Gevaryahu wonders why Zionist founders thought Jewish self-determination would end anti-Semitism. Bilaam the anti-Semite underscored our fundamental uniqueness that, unfortunately, feeds anti-Semitism.
• Menachem Begin sees the refusal to assimilate starting with Avraham Avinu who maintained his distinctiveness. The fulfillment of religious national destiny means there can be no separation between religion and State in Israel. “Cease dwelling alone and we cease to exist.”
Rabbi Sacks defines the phrase to mean that we are a people “…prepared to stand alone if need be, living by its own moral code, having the courage to be different and to take the road less travelled”. We are a distinctive people defined by our shared memories and collective responsibilities having survived and capable of again surviving even in exile and dispersion because our society is built on justice and human dignity. “Israel uniquely became a society before it was a state. It had laws before it had a land. It was a people before it was a nation, that is, a political entity… Israel’s strength lies not in nationalism but in building a society based on justice and human dignity”.