Difference between revisions of "Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/1/he"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 4: Line 4:
 
<h1>למה כעס ה' על בלעם?</h1>
 
<h1>למה כעס ה' על בלעם?</h1>
 
<figure class="thumb"><a href="Bilam and the Donkey in Art" data-aht="page"><img src="/Media/4Bemidbar/22/Bilam and the Donkey in Art/Lastman.jpg"/></a><figcaption>(<a href="Bilam and the Donkey in Art" data-aht="page">הקליקו לנושא זה באמנות</a>)</figcaption></figure>
 
<figure class="thumb"><a href="Bilam and the Donkey in Art" data-aht="page"><img src="/Media/4Bemidbar/22/Bilam and the Donkey in Art/Lastman.jpg"/></a><figcaption>(<a href="Bilam and the Donkey in Art" data-aht="page">הקליקו לנושא זה באמנות</a>)</figcaption></figure>
<h2>A Change of Heart</h2>
+
<h2>Change of Heart</h2>
 
<p><a href="Bemidbar22" data-aht="source">במדבר כ״ב</a>&#160;describes how Balak, the King of Moav, asks Bilam to curse the Children of Israel. Bilam consults with Hashem who flatly refuses him permission and commands him:</p>
 
<p><a href="Bemidbar22" data-aht="source">במדבר כ״ב</a>&#160;describes how Balak, the King of Moav, asks Bilam to curse the Children of Israel. Bilam consults with Hashem who flatly refuses him permission and commands him:</p>
 
<q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he">
 
<q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he">
Line 21: Line 21:
 
</q>
 
</q>
  
<h2 name="Angel and Donkey">Angel and Talking Donkey</h2>
+
<h2 name="המלאך והאתון">המלאך והאתון המדבר</h2>
 
<p>Bilam's miraculously talking donkey and his encounter with the angel are, for many, the most memorable part of the story, but also one of its most perplexing:</p>
 
<p>Bilam's miraculously talking donkey and his encounter with the angel are, for many, the most memorable part of the story, but also one of its most perplexing:</p>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
Line 47: Line 47:
  
 
<h2>Obedient Servant or Devious Plotter</h2>
 
<h2>Obedient Servant or Devious Plotter</h2>
<p>From reading our story alone, one might get the impression that Bilam is a positive character.<fn>Of course, Hashem's wrath must still be explained.</fn> He is the epitome of the obsequious 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.&#160; For examples and differing opinions as to whether prophets have some autonomy, see&#160;<a href="Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction" data-aht="page">מעשי נביאים בלי צו מפורש מאת ה'</a> and&#160;<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 in the episode of the angel, upon being admonished, Bilam immediately confesses, "I have sinned," and thereafter proceeds exactly as commanded.</fn>&#160; He merits prophecy<fn>לפי <multilink><a href="RambamHilkhotYesodeiHaTorah7-1" data-aht="source">רמב״ם</a><a href="RambamShemonahPerakim7" data-aht="source">שמונה פרקים ז'</a><a href="RambamHilkhotYesodeiHaTorah7-1" data-aht="source">רמב"ם הלכות יסודי התורה ז׳:א׳</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' משה בן מיימון</a></multilink> and others, one of the requirements for the attainment of prophecy is moral perfection. [ראו <a href="Philosophy:Requirements for Prophec" data-aht="page">התנאים לנבואה</a>.]&#160; If so, one would expect Bilam to have an impeccable character.&#160; ראו <a href="2" data-aht="subpage">גישות פרשניות</a> for more on Rambam's view of Bilam.</fn> and consistently refers to Hashem using His proper name (the&#160;Tetragrammaton or שם הויה), suggesting that Bilam recognized Hashem's supreme authority.</p>
+
<p>From reading our story alone, one might get the impression that Bilam is a positive character.<fn>Of course, Hashem's wrath must still be explained.</fn> He is the epitome of the obsequious 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.&#160; For examples and differing opinions as to whether prophets have some autonomy, see&#160;<a href="Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction" data-aht="page">מעשי נביאים בלי צו מפורש מאת ה'</a> ו<a href="Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction" data-aht="page">פעילות בשם ה' ללא צו מפורש של ה'</a>.</fn> and always following Hashem's directions.<fn>Even in the episode of the angel, upon being admonished, Bilam immediately confesses, "I have sinned," and thereafter proceeds exactly as commanded.</fn>&#160; He merits prophecy<fn>לפי <multilink><a href="RambamHilkhotYesodeiHaTorah7-1" data-aht="source">רמב״ם</a><a href="RambamShemonahPerakim7" data-aht="source">שמונה פרקים ז'</a><a href="RambamHilkhotYesodeiHaTorah7-1" data-aht="source">רמב"ם הלכות יסודי התורה ז׳:א׳</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' משה בן מיימון</a></multilink> and others, one of the requirements for the attainment of prophecy is moral perfection. [ראו <a href="Philosophy:Requirements for Prophec" data-aht="page">התנאים לנבואה</a>.]&#160; If so, one would expect Bilam to have an impeccable character.&#160; ראו <a href="2" data-aht="subpage">גישות פרשניות</a> for more on Rambam's view of Bilam.</fn> and consistently refers to Hashem using His proper name (the&#160;Tetragrammaton or שם הויה), suggesting that Bilam recognized Hashem's supreme authority.</p>
 
<p>However, several subsequent verses pose challenges to this portrait. When recounting the story in <a href="Devarim23-4-7" data-aht="source">דברים כ״ג</a>,<fn>ראו גם הניסוח הדומה ב<a href="Yehoshua24-9-10" data-aht="source">יהושע כ״ד</a>, "וְלֹא אָבִיתִי לִשְׁמֹעַ לְבִלְעָם וַיְבָרֶךְ בָּרוֹךְ אֶתְכֶם וָאַצִּל אֶתְכֶם מִיָּדוֹ", וראו <a href="Nechemyah13-1-2" data-aht="source">נחמיה י״ג</a> which speaks of Hashem's changing Bilam's curse into a blessing. Both of these verses imply that Bilam's intentions were indeed to curse the nation.</fn> Moshe writes:</p>
 
<p>However, several subsequent verses pose challenges to this portrait. When recounting the story in <a href="Devarim23-4-7" data-aht="source">דברים כ״ג</a>,<fn>ראו גם הניסוח הדומה ב<a href="Yehoshua24-9-10" data-aht="source">יהושע כ״ד</a>, "וְלֹא אָבִיתִי לִשְׁמֹעַ לְבִלְעָם וַיְבָרֶךְ בָּרוֹךְ אֶתְכֶם וָאַצִּל אֶתְכֶם מִיָּדוֹ", וראו <a href="Nechemyah13-1-2" data-aht="source">נחמיה י״ג</a> which speaks of Hashem's changing Bilam's curse into a blessing. Both of these verses imply that Bilam's intentions were indeed to curse the nation.</fn> Moshe writes:</p>
 
<q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he">
 
<q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he">
Line 57: Line 57:
 
</q>
 
</q>
 
<p>This verse implies that it was due to Bilam's counsel that the Midianites induced the nation to sin with Baal Peor.&#160; As such, Bilam emerges here, not as a faithful servant, but as a devious schemer, plotting the downfall of Israel.</p>
 
<p>This verse implies that it was due to Bilam's counsel that the Midianites induced the nation to sin with Baal Peor.&#160; As such, Bilam emerges here, not as a faithful servant, but as a devious schemer, plotting the downfall of Israel.</p>
<p>How might these stories and verses be reconciled?&#160; Which story portrays the "real" Bilam? Should one re-read the original narrative in light of Bilam's later actions and Moshe's account, or reinterpret the later verses in light of his earlier ostensible obedience?<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">משנה אבות ה':י"ט</a><a href="MishnaAvot5-19" data-aht="source">אבות ה׳:י״ט</a><a href="Mishna Avot" data-aht="parshan">אודות משנה אבות</a></multilink>, <a href="BavliSotah11a" data-aht="source">בבלי סוטה י״א.</a>, <multilink><a href="TargumYerushalmiYonatanBemidbar31-8" data-aht="source">תרגום ירושלמי (יונתן)</a><a href="TargumYerushalmiYonatanBemidbar31-8" data-aht="source">במדבר ל״א:ח׳</a><a href="Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)" data-aht="parshan">אודות תרגום ירושלמי (יונתן)</a></multilink> and <a href="YalkutShimoniShemot2-11" data-aht="source">ילקוט שמעוני שמות ב׳:י״א</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 where a seemingly neutral figure in Tanakh is painted black, see <a href="Nimrod" data-aht="page">דמותו של נמרוד</a>, <a href="A Portrait of Yishmael" data-aht="page">דמותו של ישמעאל</a>, ו<a href="A Portrait of Esav" data-aht="page">דמותו של עשו</a>.</fn></p>
+
<p>How might these stories and verses be reconciled?&#160; Which story portrays the "real" Bilam? Should one re-read the original narrative in light of Bilam's later actions and Moshe's account, or reinterpret the later verses in light of his earlier ostensible obedience?<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">משנה אבות ה':י"ט</a><a href="MishnaAvot5-19" data-aht="source">אבות ה׳:י״ט</a><a href="Mishna Avot" data-aht="parshan">אודות משנה אבות</a></multilink>, <a href="BavliSotah11a" data-aht="source">בבלי סוטה י״א.</a>, <multilink><a href="TargumYerushalmiYonatanBemidbar31-8" data-aht="source">תרגום ירושלמי (יונתן)</a><a href="TargumYerushalmiYonatanBemidbar31-8" data-aht="source">במדבר ל״א:ח׳</a><a href="Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)" data-aht="parshan">אודות תרגום ירושלמי (יונתן)</a></multilink>, ו<a href="YalkutShimoniShemot2-11" data-aht="source">ילקוט שמעוני שמות ב׳:י״א</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 where a seemingly neutral figure in Tanakh is painted black, see <a href="Nimrod" data-aht="page">דמותו של נמרוד</a>, <a href="A Portrait of Yishmael" data-aht="page">דמותו של ישמעאל</a>, ו<a href="A Portrait of Esav" data-aht="page">דמותו של עשו</a>.</fn></p>
  
 
<h2>Additional Questions</h2>
 
<h2>Additional Questions</h2>

Version as of 07:56, 19 July 2019

למה כעס ה' על בלעם?

הקדמה

(הקליקו לנושא זה באמנות)

Change of Heart

במדבר כ״ב describes how Balak, the King of Moav, asks Bilam to curse the Children of Israel. Bilam consults with Hashem who flatly refuses him permission and commands him:

 לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא.

Upon hearing Bilam's reply, Balak tries his luck again, sending a second entourage to  persuade Bilam to curse the nation. Despite Hashem's earlier refusal, Bilam again seeks Hashem's approval, and somewhat surprisingly, this time he receives the opposite response:

וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם לַיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה.

What makes Hashem change His mind? Why, this time around, does Hashem allow Bilam to go with the messengers? Did something occur in the interim to affect His decision?

A Second Change of Heart

More perplexing than Hashem's initial position reversal, though, is Hashem's reaction when Bilam acts on Hashem's permission. Immediately after Bilam departs with the Moabites, we are told that Hashem is filled with wrath ("וַיִּחַר אַף אֱלֹהִים כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא"). How is this reaction to be understood? Why is Hashem angry if Bilam is simply following His orders?  As Abarbanel asks in his eighth question on the chapter:

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?!

המלאך והאתון המדבר

Bilam's miraculously talking donkey and his encounter with the angel are, for many, the most memorable part of the story, but also one of its 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 simply reiterates Hashem's earlier command almost verbatim, and Bilam proceeds exactly as before (see table below). If so, what was achieved by this entire episode?3
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

From reading our story alone, one might get the impression that Bilam is a positive character.4 He is the epitome of the obsequious servant, never acting without first consulting Hashem5 and always following Hashem's directions.6  He merits prophecy7 and consistently refers to Hashem using His proper name (the Tetragrammaton or שם הויה), suggesting that Bilam recognized Hashem's supreme authority.

However, several subsequent verses pose challenges to this portrait. When recounting the story in דברים כ״ג,8 Moshe writes:

וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ.

Contrary to the obedient profile of Bilam found in our story, this verse implies that Bilam had headed to Moav with a plot of his own to curse the Children of Israel and that Hashem needed to overturn this nefarious plan. At the end of Bemidbar, Bilam makes another cameo appearance, and it, too, makes one question his innocence. במדבר ל״א:ח׳ states that Bilam was killed together with the Midianite kings in the war waged against them by Israel, and במדבר ל״א:ט״ז may provide a justification for his death:

הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסׇר מַעַל בַּי״י עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה בַּעֲדַת י״י.

This verse implies that it was due to Bilam's counsel that the Midianites induced the nation to sin with Baal Peor.  As such, Bilam emerges here, not as a faithful servant, but as a devious schemer, plotting the downfall of Israel.

How might these stories and verses be reconciled?  Which story portrays the "real" Bilam? Should one re-read the original narrative in light of Bilam's later actions and Moshe's account, or reinterpret the later verses in light of his earlier ostensible obedience?9

Additional Questions

Several smaller questions might shed light on the above issues:

  • "לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא"‎ (כ"ב:י"ב) – When Bilam conveys to the first set of messengers Hashem's initial refusal to let him go, he relays only part of Hashem's response, omitting that he may not curse the nation since they are blessed. Is this omission significant?  Why might Bilam have kept this fact to himself?  Alternatively, is it possible that, despite the text's silence, Bilam relayed this point as well?
  • "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים" ‎‎ (כ"ב:כ') – This language appears extraneous. Why does Hashem add the condition, "if the men have come to summon you"?  Is it not obvious that they came to summon Bilam?
  • שרים שנעלמו‎ (כ"ב:כ"ב-ל"ד) – Though Bilam departs with Moabite officers (כ"ב:א'), there is no mention of them throughout the angel-donkey episode. To where did they disappear?  Is it possible that though they are absent from the text, they, too, witnessed the incident?