Balaam
What has always interested me is the bad rap that Balaam has received. This attitude has bothered me, as it appears in a number of significant places.
{Prophecy}
Is it because he is a not of Israel? And thus cannot be claimed as a Jewish prophet? Or is that a certain, special type of prophecy has been granted to the children of Israel, and a different prophecy laid upon the other peoples? Perhaps the people of the Holy Land, children of Israel, are able to receive the prophecy directly. While the others receive indirectly, through other means? This would explain their need for deification of the messenger!
Yet this is not what our tradition says. In fact, it is only Moshe Rabeinu who can see through the speculum clearly. All the rest of the our prophets receive their visions and messages indirectly, in images and other elements.
Is this something that is only granted to those who are of Jewish blood? Or is it granted to all those who live in the Holy Land - which is perhaps not the land which we call Israel today?
For two-thousand years we prayed, we begged, we cried to return to the Land of Israel. Then, once our wish is granted, we rush headling into creating a nation that does not put G-d and His Commandments in the forefront of all that they do. From the beginning, the Torah is rejected as extinct (or expired) - at least no longer relevant. Yet it is our belief and faith in the writings of G-d as presented in the Torah that brought us back to Israel - which we subsequently fill with all the detritus of the modern, godless society that run the world today.
Perhaps the Holy Land, the "nation" of G-d's beloved is those, all over and everywhere, who still firmly and deeply and authentically believe in God — who every morning and every evening pledge their hears and their souls to G-d, and try to live their lives serving as best they understand G-d's Will. Even if they fail, at least they are trying. They are believers and have faith. And in what do they believe? In a heaven on earth, as idealistic as that might seem, where we can live as human beings and interact in the way that most human beings wish to - kindly and lovingly - unless they have been twisted into some obscene shape by the non-believers.
Chapter 22
Although Balaam has been portrayed as an evil man (who deserved to die at Ba'al Peor), in this portion he is not portrayed as an evil man.
Interesting that it is after Balak, who wished to curse the children of Israel, and not Balaam, who is the actual “hero” or protagonist in this reading.
Perhaps there is also a deeper lesson hidden here, as we evolve and gain deeper insight into the words. We punish the perpetrator of a crime, the one who harms the other, even if he or she is carrying out the crime in the name or under the authority of someone else. We do not tend to go for the one who is issuing the orders. In this the Nuremburg trials differed significantly, but it seems that it was really a one time event, and was used in essence to punish the losers and place the victors on higher moral ground. What occurs in this portion is a pertinent example of the one who instigates the actual crime as not being held in any way responsible for if Balaam is guilty of a crime, it is actually Balak who is the the one behind Balaam's crime. In that light, it make sense for the reading to be named after Balak, as he is the true perpetrator of Balaam's sin. Balaam would not have sinned so without Balak incentives.
Looking at the story, a king (albeit temporary according to some texts) of a powerful nation requests that he, Bilaam, curse this people of Israel, who pose a threat to his kingdom. Did Balaam really have that much of a choice? When a powerful king, Balak, enlists your aid, how do you refuse him?
22:8] Upon the emissaries of Balak appearing before Balaam to induce him to curse the people, he responds to them, saying: “Spend the night. And if the Lord will speak to me. . .” He does not just succumb to their offer of reward, but says “if the Lord will speak to me”, in other words he must first wait for “instructions” as to how to proceed.
Although Balaam is not from the children of Israel, he is visited and speaks regularly with the Lord. How is that? It seems he has some way of communicating with the Lord, and is familiar enough to be able to hear and understand Him. We find examples of this peppered across the Torah. It seems, as well, that he is fairly competent at this communication, for one, he is known as a prophet, in addition, he asked them to stay the night, not longer, for him to “speak with the Lord.”
Be that as it may, what I find fascinating is that he has communication with the Lord of Israel, even though he is not of the tribe of Israel.
Balak requests Balaam
22:9] And as we see in v 9, he is correct, and indeed that evening “the Lord comes to Balaam, and speaks to him”. What is strange here, is that He asks him, “Who are these people?” as if he would not know. But most interesting is the fact the the Lord speaks to Balaam.
22:12] This time, as we read, He tells Balaam to send them away. “Do not go with them.” However, Balak does not give up, and they return again and again, offering him more and more.
22:18] The final offer, almost open ended, is presented. “I will reap rewards and bounty upon him”. As if to say, name your price. Balaam again tells them to stay the night, as before, and that he has to ask the Lord, for as he clearly states, “I cannot transgress the Lord”, even though they offer him riches beyond his wildest dreams.
That, in itself, must have taken guts — to stand up against a king. To refuse a royal request is not something that one did lightly in those days. Perhaps he was protected by being a prophet.
22:20] Again the question: “Who are these men?” Why is He asking? What is missing here? This time the response however is “Go with these men, if they are emissaries of Balak.”
She donkey
Immediately upon Balaam setting out on his journey, we read that this “Invokes the wrath of the Lord.” Why is that, I ask? In v20 he says if they are Balak’s people, go with them?” So why did that now arouse G-d's wrath?
Nevertheless it did, and He immediately dispatches an angel to. . . kill him?
Now we have the saga of the she-donkey, referred to hear as אָתון, though the Hebrew word for donkey is chamor. What does aton actually mean? I ask this, because I ask what sort of animal this was that he “rode” on. For it is turns out that this aton sees angels and can speak (or communicate) with us.
It is also as if this piece was inserted into the text. It stands on its own. For one thing, why is Balaam only with his "two youths"? Would not the emissaries have accompanied him on his journey to Balak?
Note that the angel appears 3 times, for the triple repetition is common. The first time she sees the angel in the path, and walks into a field. The second time she presses Balaam's leg into the wall. The third time, he just crouched down.
22:28] “He opens the mouth of the donkey” and the donkey speaks, quite rationally.
Some might say that it was the Lord who spoke through the mouth of the donkey, and that it was rational speech, might even be used as evidence of this. That might be sufficient for many, but I would like to see if I can understand it on a more prosaic level, for if one invokes the first explanation, then it overrides all others, and this statement eradicates any other possible explanation, and allows the commentator to continue, without having to wrangle with the depths of this teaching.
In addition, why, if He had sent an Angel down, was it then necessary for the Lord Himself, Blessed be His Name, to have to speak through the mouth of a donkey? Why use a donkey – and not the angel that He had sent down? Is it perhaps that until Balaam’s eyes were open to seeing the Angel, he could not hear it either? Why is that?
How did he so easily understand and accept that the donkey could speak, and so rationally, to him? For he does not seem surprised by the donkey’s conversational tone. Surely he would have realised at that point he was being addressed by the Lord, if that was the case.
This is such an enigmatic scene. Riding along on my donkey on a lovely day, my mind focused on this finely balanced goal of cursing the tribe of Israel for Balak, and suddenly my donkey speaks to me – in Aramaic or was it Hebrew? Nevertheless in a language that I understand. Although, the Lord, who is All, can fashion and do anything, the actual mouth and tongue and vocal cords are not sufficient for it to speak in a human fashion – not that that would be a problem for the One that is Omnipotent. But why? Why not make it easy, and send someone, an angel even, to give him the message – just like the three strangers that came to Avraham, our father.
I say that there is a “universal” language (I hesitate to call it a language – unless we decide to define a language as a set of symbols or visions which are meaningful to the transmitter and the receiver. This could be sounds, shape, engravings, statues, images, etc. It could also be “chashmal” – the silence that speaks – for to speak is to “communicate” symbols. One could call it a type of telepathy – soundless communication, a “mental” transfer of images. It is “as if” it was speaking. One can hear the words, but there is no voice.
22:30] He opened Balaam’s eyes, just as He opened the mouth of the donkey. Although the Lord, who is King over all, opens Balaam’s eyes to see the angel (v30), He never opens his ears to hear Him (nor the donkey’s) speak. There is also the aspect of hearing – and understanding. For the donkey understood and answered Balaam quite clearly.
22:32] The angel now speaks to Balaam, using similar language as the donkey. [Does the text say that?]. As telepathy is a modern word, perhaps the more ancient and accurate word would have been “angelic communication”. But why was Balaam thwarting the Lord’s wishes, when he had been instructed to go with them? And if he had G-d's permission, why was the Angel sent to kill him? And if the sentence was capital punishment – what was the mortal sin that Balaam had committed? Was he being punished for or by killing him, would prevent, the heinous act of cursing the tribe of Israel – of whom he was not a member, and who was being coerced by a powerful king to act? It seems that the sentence was rather servere, and if the sentence was that severe, how could the donkey’s seeing the angel have saved Balaam? How is that just the fact the she saw the Angel was sufficient to annul his punishment?
Balaam then offers to return, unaware of the Lord’s wrath, until the Angel announces it.
22:35] However, the Angel’s response is for him to continue. Now if that is the case, then what was the previous “drama” about? I mean, Balaam was just obeying orders...
22:38] What is added here are more explicit instructions on “speaking My words”. Did He not say that when He first told Balaam to set out on his journey?
I recently came across the concept of the circular method of narrative that was apparently used for biblical stories. This would explain the strange circularity of some of the narrative. Apparently it is a style that was common in those times. Today, it seems we have a more linear, or deterministic, way of telling our stories. Not that the story lines do not interweave, but it is more like a double helix arrangement, but seldom are the circular.
As there is no mention of the dignitaries nor the two servants that accompanied him when he set out. Which makes the use of the donkey even more interesting – for why not use one of the servants to speak to him instead? Why use the donkey?
Chapter 23
23:4] After preparing the first ceremony, the Lord “chanced” upon Balaam. What does “chanced” mean in this context? The Lord just happened to bump in to him on His way to. . .?” Anyway, He “placed” something in Balaam’s mouth – “say as follows”.
It is both scary and exciting when the Lord places something in my mouth. When I am fully conscious and present with the words that come from my mouth, it seems that it is the Lord that is speaking. The times when I am unaware of what I am really saying, are the times that it seems that it is my Nefesh that is speaking
23:8] Balaam reiterates in v8, “How can I go against the Lord?”. And again in v12: “I must speak what the Lord puts into my mouth.”
23:15] “I will be chanced (upon) here?” so says Balak. Is this referring to Balak or to G!d (using Anochi - אנוכי)? He could also be referring to Balaam, as the chancer. Will I be tricked (chanced) here too? But he is correct, for it says: The Lord chanced upon Balaam.
23:16] Again Balaam says he has no choice, but must speak the Lord’s words.
[TODO: Some stuff happens from v16-24 in relation to the ceremony.]
Chapter 24
24:1-4] Balaam saw the “Spirit of God rested on him (Israel)”. Why is the nation referred to as "him?". Balaam, who is not a Jewish prophet, sees the Lord's presence (with Israel) (again) by the Lord. This time G!d doesn’t put anything in his mouth, he just speaks – calling himself “the man with an open eye.” Described as:
ד נְאֻ֕ם שֹׁמֵ֖עַ אִמְרֵי־אֵ֑ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר מַֽחֲזֵ֤ה שַׁדַּי֙ יֶֽחֱזֶ֔ה נֹפֵ֖ל וּגְל֥וּי עֵינָֽיִםThe word of the one who hears God's sayings, who sees the vision of the Almighty, fallen yet with open eyes.
24:13] After blessing the Jews, again Balaam says he cannot transgress the Lord’s wishes to Balak.
v24:14] Here he describes his words, once again (v4), as " the word of a man with an open eye" וּנְאֻ֥ם הַגֶּ֖בֶר שְׁתֻ֥ם הָעָֽיִן. And, describes them as (v15):
טז נְאֻ֗ם שֹׁמֵ֨עַ֙ אִמְרֵי־אֵ֔ל וְיֹדֵ֖עַ דַּ֣עַת עֶלְי֑וֹן מַֽחֲזֵ֤ה שַׁדַּי֙ יֶֽחֱזֶ֔ה נֹפֵ֖ל וּגְל֥וּי עֵינָֽיִם:The word of the one who hears God's sayings and perceives the thoughts of the Most High; who sees the vision of the Almighty, fallen yet with open eyes.
24:17-24] Strange prophecies. This time, after saying that he has an "open eye", Balaam spews forth a slew of prophecies, as a final farewell to Balak.
יז אֶרְאֶ֨נּוּ֙ וְלֹ֣א עַתָּ֔ה אֲשׁוּרֶ֖נּוּ וְלֹ֣א קָר֑וֹב דָּרַ֨ךְ כּוֹכָ֜ב מִיַּֽעֲקֹ֗ב וְקָ֥ם שֵׁ֨בֶט֙ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וּמָחַץ֙ פַּֽאֲתֵ֣י מוֹאָ֔ב וְקַרְקַ֖ר כָּל־בְּנֵי־שֵֽׁת:
יח וְהָיָ֨ה אֱד֜וֹם יְרֵשָׁ֗ה וְהָיָ֧ה יְרֵשָׁ֛ה שֵׂעִ֖יר אֹֽיְבָ֑יו וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עֹ֥שֶׂה חָֽיִל:
יט וְיֵ֖רְדְּ מִיַּֽעֲקֹ֑ב וְהֶֽאֱבִ֥יד שָׂרִ֖יד מֵעִֽיר:
כ וַיַּרְא֙ אֶת־עֲמָלֵ֔ק וַיִּשָּׂ֥א מְשָׁל֖וֹ וַיֹּאמַ֑ר רֵאשִׁ֤ית גּוֹיִם֙ עֲמָלֵ֔ק וְאַֽחֲרִית֖וֹ עֲדֵ֥י אֹבֵֽד:
כא וַיַּרְא֙ אֶת־הַקֵּינִ֔י וַיִּשָּׂ֥א מְשָׁל֖וֹ וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֵיתָן֙ מֽוֹשָׁבֶ֔ךָ וְשִׂ֥ים בַּסֶּ֖לַע קִנֶּֽךָ:
כב כִּ֥י אִם־יִֽהְיֶ֖ה לְבָ֣עֵֽר קָ֑יִן עַד־מָ֖ה אַשּׁ֥וּר תִּשְׁבֶּֽךָּ:
כג וַיִּשָּׂ֥א מְשָׁל֖וֹ וַיֹּאמַ֑ר א֕וֹי מִ֥י יִֽחְיֶ֖ה מִשֻּׂמ֥וֹ אֵֽל:
כד וְצִים֙ מִיַּ֣ד כִּתִּ֔ים וְעִנּ֥וּ אַשּׁ֖וּר וְעִנּוּ־עֵ֑בֶר וְגַם־ה֖וּא עֲדֵ֥י אֹבֵֽד:
- I see it, but not now; I behold it, but not soon. A star has gone forth from Jacob, and a staff will arise from Israel which will crush the princes of Moab and uproot all the sons of Seth.
- Edom shall be possessed, and Seir shall become the possession of his enemies, and Israel shall triumph.
- A ruler shall come out of Jacob, and destroy the remnant of the city.
- When he saw Amalek, he took up his parable and said, "Amalek was the first of the nations, and his fate shall be everlasting destruction."
- When he saw the Kenite, he took up his parable and said, "How firm is your dwelling place, and your nest is set in a cliff.
- For if Kain is laid waste, how far will Assyria take you captive?" 23He took up his parable and said, Alas! Who can survive these things from God?
- He took up his parable and said, Alas! Who can survive these things from God?
- Ships will come from the Kittites and afflict Assyria and afflict those on the other side, but he too will perish forever."
24:25] This interaction ends simply with:
כה וַיָּ֣קָם בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ וַיָּ֣שָׁב לִמְקֹמ֑וֹ וְגַם־בָּלָ֖ק הָלַ֥ךְ לְדַרְכּֽוֹ:25. Balaam arose, went, and returned home, and Balak went on his way.
Chapter 25
Baal Peor
The people, having settled in Shittim, begin to fraternize with the daughters of the Moabites (v1). They began to participate in their sacrifices to their gods, and they ate and bowed to these foreign gods (v2).Once they became attached to them, G-d's anger arose against Israel (v3).
25:4-5] Hang the leaders
ד וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה קַ֚ח אֶת־כָּל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הָעָ֔ם וְהוֹקַ֥ע אוֹתָ֛ם לַֽיהֹוָ֖ה נֶ֣גֶד הַשָּׁ֑מֶשׁ וְיָשֹׁ֛ב חֲר֥וֹן אַף־יְהֹוָ֖ה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל:He says to Moses: "Arrest all the leaders of the people and hang them, facing the sun, and then My anger will be removed from Israel.
Why facing the sun?
Moses then tells the judges to kill the leaders. The leaders of what? Of the people. Or of specific people? Were there leaders who were leading this assimilation that was occurring?
25:6-8] Pinchas.
Once again we have this strange narrative technique. We begin with the general overview of the narrative. The people are fraternising with the Midianites, so G-d get angry and commands Moses to kill the leaders.
Then we have this specific event — which would not have occurred if the leaders had been taken and hanged in front of the camp. And it is expressed dramatically:
ו וְהִנֵּ֡ה אִישׁ֩ מִבְּנֵ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל בָּ֗א וַיַּקְרֵ֤ב אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִ֔ית לְעֵינֵ֣י משֶׁ֔ה וּלְעֵינֵ֖י כָּל־עֲדַ֣ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְהֵ֣מָּה בֹכִ֔ים פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד:6. an Israelite man came and brought the Midianite woman to his brethren, before the eyes of Moses and before the eyes of the entire congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
Why are they weeping? Is it because of what he is doing? Or is it because of the plague?
25:7-8] Pinchas kills the two of them, and then the plague ceases. A plague, which killed 24k, that we did not hear about until now, unless we connect it with the “wrath of God” mentioned previously in v3. If the plague killed all those who were fraternising, then who did the Judges need to kill?
ז וַיַּ֗רְא פִּֽינְחָס֙ בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָ֔ר בֶּן־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן הַכֹּהֵ֑ן וַיָּ֨קָם֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ הָֽעֵדָ֔ה וַיִּקַּ֥ח רֹ֖מַח בְּיָדֽוֹ: ח וַיָּבֹ֠א אַחַ֨ר אִֽישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶל־הַקֻּבָּ֗ה וַיִּדְקֹר֙ אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם אֵ֚ת אִ֣ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאֶת־הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־קֳבָתָ֑הּ וַתֵּֽעָצַר֙ הַמַּגֵּפָ֔ה מֵעַ֖ל בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:7. Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the kohen saw this, arose from the congregation, and took a spear in his hand. 8. He went after the Israelite man into the chamber and drove [it through] both of them; the Israelite man, and the woman through her stomach, and the plague ceased from the children of Israel.
I must also admit to a modicum of confusion about what the relationship of Moab was to Midian. Why did Balak consult the Midianite elders as well? Was this due to an alliance that he wished to forge with them? But if he wanted to use Balaam, why then did he approach the Midianite elders before doing so?
According to our sages – though there is no mention of his involvement in the text – after the event, seeing that he had upset Balak, and thus the Midianites, he tried to make amends by advising them to engage the Israelites by enticing them with their women. He obviously had more connections to the Moabites and the Midianites than to the Israelites, and he needed to “repair” these relations after blessing the Israelites instead of cursing them. So he offers them this advice.
Though it is somewhat difficult to imagine defeating a people by enticing them to join with your women. That normally takes a generation or two, not a such a short time. It is also convenient to blame our people's immorality on someone's connivance.
I say the Balaam was not only a righteous man, but he was a hero to the Jewish people. He steadfastly refused to be swayed by Balak. He only did and said what G-d told him to say. As a result of which Israel received a blessing instead of a curse. Who knows what effect a curse would have had upon the future of the nation? Instead, we were blessed...