Difference between revisions of "Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/1/en"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<q xml:lang="en">God came to Balaam at night, and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak to you, that you shall do.”</q> | <q xml:lang="en">God came to Balaam at night, and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak to you, that you shall do.”</q> | ||
</multilang> | </multilang> | ||
| − | <p>What makes Hashem change His mind? Has something happened | + | <p>What makes Hashem change His mind? Has something happened in the interim leading Hashem, this time around, to allow Bilam to accompany the messengers?</p> |
<h2>A Second Change of Heart</h2> | <h2>A Second Change of Heart</h2> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
<p>Bilam's miraculous talking donkey and his encounter with the angel are, for many, the most memorable part of the story, but also one of the most perplexing:</p> | <p>Bilam's miraculous talking donkey and his encounter with the angel are, for many, the most memorable part of the story, but also one of the most perplexing:</p> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li>Why does Hashem decide to relay His message to Bilam in this manner rather than straightforwardly expressing His anger?<fn>This is especially difficult considering that Bilam receives prophecy and communicates with Hashem directly throughout the story.</fn>  Was making a miracle (enabling the donkey to both see the angel and to speak) really necessary in order to communicate His point?<fn>See Ralbag and Abarbanel (in his eleventh question on the chapter) who point out that Hashem does not bring miracles for no reason. Since the angel could have communicated directly with Bilam, there seems to be little gained by having the donkey miraculously see an angel and speak. [Ralbag writes, "ואם אמרנו שה׳ יתעלה עשה זה על דרך המופת, הנה ישאל שואל אי־זה תועלת היה בזה המופת...  והוא מבואר שה׳ יתעלה לא יחדש המופתים ללא צורך".]  Ralbag here is consistent with his general tendency to minimize miracles, | + | <li>Why does Hashem decide to relay His message to Bilam in this manner rather than straightforwardly expressing His anger?<fn>This is especially difficult considering that Bilam receives prophecy and communicates with Hashem directly throughout the story.</fn>  Was making a miracle (enabling the donkey to both see the angel and to speak) really necessary in order to communicate His point?<fn>See <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-13-33" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-13-33" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:13-33</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-2" data-aht="source">Abarbanel </a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:2</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-7" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:7</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-22" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:22</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>(in his eleventh question on the chapter) who point out that Hashem does not bring miracles for no reason. Since the angel could have communicated directly with Bilam, there seems to be little gained by having the donkey miraculously see an angel and speak. [Ralbag writes, "ואם אמרנו שה׳ יתעלה עשה זה על דרך המופת, הנה ישאל שואל אי־זה תועלת היה בזה המופת...  והוא מבואר שה׳ יתעלה לא יחדש המופתים ללא צורך".]  Ralbag here is consistent with his general tendency to minimize miracles. Abarbanel, too, is consistent with his repeated emphasis on the fact that miracles are related to necessity.  For elaboration, see <a href="Philosophy:Miracles" data-aht="page">Miracles</a> and <a href="Moshe's Epitaph – Signs and Wonders" data-aht="page">Moshe's Epitaph – Signs and Wonders</a>.</fn></li> |
<li>Given Hashem's anger at Bilam, the reader expects that at the end of the encounter, there will be some change in Hashem's instructions or in Bilam's actions. Yet, the angel reiterates Hashem's earlier message almost verbatim, and Bilam proceeds exactly as before (see table below). If so, what was gained through the entire episode?</li> | <li>Given Hashem's anger at Bilam, the reader expects that at the end of the encounter, there will be some change in Hashem's instructions or in Bilam's actions. Yet, the angel reiterates Hashem's earlier message almost verbatim, and Bilam proceeds exactly as before (see table below). If so, what was gained through the entire episode?</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
<h2>Obedient Servant or Devious Plotter</h2> | <h2>Obedient Servant or Devious Plotter</h2> | ||
| − | <p>When reading our story in isolation, Bilam appears to be a fairly positive character.<fn>Of course, Hashem's wrath must still be explained.</fn> He is the epitome of the obedient servant, never acting without first consulting Hashem<fn>The same cannot necessarily be said of all Israelite prophets, who often appear to act on their own, without first seeking Hashem's consent.  For examples and differing opinions as to whether prophetic autonomy is a positive or negative phenomenon, see <a href="Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction" data-aht="page">Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction</a> and <a href="Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction" data-aht="page">Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction</a>.</fn> and always following Hashem's directions.<fn>Even when told that he is in the wrong, he immediately confesses, "I have sinned," and thereafter proceeds | + | <p>When reading our story in isolation, Bilam appears to be a fairly positive character.<fn>Of course, Hashem's wrath must still be explained.</fn> He is the epitome of the obedient servant, never acting without first consulting Hashem<fn>The same cannot necessarily be said of all Israelite prophets, who often appear to act on their own, without first seeking Hashem's consent.  For examples and differing opinions as to whether prophetic autonomy is a positive or negative phenomenon, see <a href="Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction" data-aht="page">Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction</a> and <a href="Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction" data-aht="page">Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction</a>.</fn> and always following Hashem's directions.<fn>Even when told that he is in the wrong, he immediately confesses, "I have sinned," and thereafter proceeds exactly as commanded.</fn>  He merits prophecy<fn>According to several opinions, most notably the Rambam, one of the requirements for the attainment of prophecy is moral perfection (See Requirements for Prophecy).  If so, one would expect that Bilam has an impeccable character.</fn> and consistently refers to Hashem using His proper name (the Tetragrammaton or שם הויה), suggesting that he recognized Hashem's sole authority. Two tangential comments at the end of Sefer Bemidbar, however, question this portrait. <a href="Bemidbar31-8" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 31:8</a> states that Bilam was killed together with the Midianite kings in the war waged against them by Israel, while <a href="Bemidbar31-16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 31:16</a> provides an explanation and justification for his death:</p> |
<multilang style="overflow: auto;"> | <multilang style="overflow: auto;"> | ||
<q xml:lang="he" dir="rtl">הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסׇר מַעַל בַּי״י עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה בַּעֲדַת י״י.</q> | <q xml:lang="he" dir="rtl">הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסׇר מַעַל בַּי״י עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה בַּעֲדַת י״י.</q> | ||
<q xml:lang="en">Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Hashem in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Hashem.</q> | <q xml:lang="en">Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Hashem in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Hashem.</q> | ||
</multilang> | </multilang> | ||
| − | <p>This verse implies that it was at Bilam's advice that the Midianites incited the nation to sin at Baal Peor.  Bilam emerges here, not as a faithful servant, but as a devious schemer, plotting the downfall of Israel. How might the two portraits be reconciled?  Which story portrays the "real" Bilam? Should one re-read the original | + | <p>This verse implies that it was at Bilam's advice that the Midianites incited the nation to sin at Baal Peor.  As such, Bilam emerges here, not as a faithful servant, but as a devious schemer, plotting the downfall of Israel. How might the two portraits be reconciled?  Which story portrays the "real" Bilam? Should one re-read the original narrative in light of Bilam's later actions, or reinterpret the later story in light of his earlier obedience? Alternatively, might something have occurred between the two episodes that led Bilam to change his attitude? <fn>Despite the ambiguous portrait that emerges from the Biblical text, Bilam is almost universally vilified by both Midrashic and later sources. For some examples, see <multilink><a href="MishnaAvot5-19" data-aht="source">Mishna Avot 5:19</a><a href="MishnaAvot5-19" data-aht="source">Avot 5:19</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <a href="BavliSotah11a" data-aht="source">Bavli Sotah 11a</a>, <multilink><a href="TargumYerushalmiYonatanBemidbar31-8" data-aht="source">Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)</a><a href="TargumYerushalmiYonatanBemidbar31-8" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 31:8</a><a href="Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)</a></multilink> and <a href="YalkutShimoniShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Yalkut Shimoni Shemot 2:11</a>.This fits with the Midrashic tendency to view characters as black or white, portraying rejected or questionable characters as totally wicked, and whitening apparent sins of otherwise righteous figures.  For other examples, see <a href="A Portrait of Esav" data-aht="page">A Portrait of Esav</a> and <a href="A Portrait of Yishmael" data-aht="page">A Portrait of Yishmael</a>.</fn></p> |
<h2>Additional Questions</h2> | <h2>Additional Questions</h2> | ||
Version as of 02:37, 10 July 2019
Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam?
Introduction
A Change of Heart
Bemidbar 22 describes how Balak, the King of Moav, requests from Bilam that he curse the Children of Israel. Bilam consults with Hashem who refuses permission, telling Bilam:
EN/HEע/E
לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא.
God said to Balaam, “You shall not go with them. You shall not curse the people; for they are blessed.”
Upon hearing the message, Balak tries his luck again, sending a second set of officers to once again attempt to convince Bilam to curse the nation. Despite Hashem's earlier refusal, Bilam again seeks Hashem's consent, and somewhat surprisingly, receives a different answer:
EN/HEע/E
וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם לַיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה.
God came to Balaam at night, and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak to you, that you shall do.”
What makes Hashem change His mind? Has something happened in the interim leading Hashem, this time around, to allow Bilam to accompany the messengers?
A Second Change of Heart
More perplexing than Hashem's initial reversing of his position, though, is Hashem's reaction when Bilam acts upon Hashem's permit. Right after Bilam departs with the Moabites, we are told that Hashem is filled with wrath. How is this reaction to be understood? Why is Hashem angry if Bilam is simply doing what he was told? As Abarbanel asks in his eighth question on the chapter:
השאלה הח׳: אם הוא יתברך הרשה את בלעם ללכת ואמר לו אם לקרא לך באו האנשים קום לך אתם איך אחרי שהלך נאמר ויחר אף אלהים כי הולך הוא ויתיצב מלאך י״י בדרך לשטן לו והוא לא הלך אלא ברשותו ובמאמרו?!
An Angel and Talking Donkey
Bilam's miraculous talking donkey and his encounter with the angel are, for many, the most memorable part of the story, but also one of the most perplexing:
- Why does Hashem decide to relay His message to Bilam in this manner rather than straightforwardly expressing His anger?1 Was making a miracle (enabling the donkey to both see the angel and to speak) really necessary in order to communicate His point?2
- Given Hashem's anger at Bilam, the reader expects that at the end of the encounter, there will be some change in Hashem's instructions or in Bilam's actions. Yet, the angel reiterates Hashem's earlier message almost verbatim, and Bilam proceeds exactly as before (see table below). If so, what was gained through the entire episode?
EN/HEע/E
| פסוקים כ'-כ"א (לפני הפגישה) | פסוק ל"ה (בסוף הפגישה) |
| וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה. | וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ י״י אֶל בִּלְעָם לֵךְ עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶפֶס אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תְדַבֵּר. |
| וַיֵּלֶךְ בִּלְעָם עִם שָׂרֵי בָלָק | וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב |
Obedient Servant or Devious Plotter
When reading our story in isolation, Bilam appears to be a fairly positive character.3 He is the epitome of the obedient servant, never acting without first consulting Hashem4 and always following Hashem's directions.5 He merits prophecy6 and consistently refers to Hashem using His proper name (the Tetragrammaton or שם הויה), suggesting that he recognized Hashem's sole authority. Two tangential comments at the end of Sefer Bemidbar, however, question this portrait. Bemidbar 31:8 states that Bilam was killed together with the Midianite kings in the war waged against them by Israel, while Bemidbar 31:16 provides an explanation and justification for his death:
EN/HEע/E
הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסׇר מַעַל בַּי״י עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה בַּעֲדַת י״י.
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Hashem in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Hashem.
This verse implies that it was at Bilam's advice that the Midianites incited the nation to sin at Baal Peor. As such, Bilam emerges here, not as a faithful servant, but as a devious schemer, plotting the downfall of Israel. How might the two portraits be reconciled? Which story portrays the "real" Bilam? Should one re-read the original narrative in light of Bilam's later actions, or reinterpret the later story in light of his earlier obedience? Alternatively, might something have occurred between the two episodes that led Bilam to change his attitude? 7
