Difference between revisions of "Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<p>Hashem's wrath was not a punitive reaction to wrongdoing but only a preemptive warning to ensure that Bilam proceeded according to Hashem's will.</p> | <p>Hashem's wrath was not a punitive reaction to wrongdoing but only a preemptive warning to ensure that Bilam proceeded according to Hashem's will.</p> | ||
<mekorot>opinion brought in <multilink><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-40" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-40" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:6-40</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink><fn>Malbim brings this opinion in the name of Ibn Ezra but this position cannot be found in his comments on the chapter.</fn></mekorot> | <mekorot>opinion brought in <multilink><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-40" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-40" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:6-40</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink><fn>Malbim brings this opinion in the name of Ibn Ezra but this position cannot be found in his comments on the chapter.</fn></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>Scope of prophecy</b> – According to this position (see also <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>) all of verses 20-35, and not only verse 20, constitute Hashem's prophetic response to Bilam in the wake of Balak's second request.  Verse 20 introduces the prophecy: "וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם לַיְלָה" and the following 14 verses relay its content.  As such, both Bilam's leaving and Hashem's wrath, and the entire donkey incident, took place only in the dream and not in reality.<fn>Cf. Rambam and Ibn Kaspi who also posits that the encounter with the angel and donkey took place in a dream.  Ibn Kaspi, however, assumes that the dream begins in verse 22 and took place enroute, after Bilam left with the messengers and enraged Hashem. As Rambam speaks only in general terms it is difficult to know | + | <point><b>Scope of prophecy</b> – According to this position (see also <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>) all of verses 20-35, and not only verse 20, constitute Hashem's prophetic response to Bilam in the wake of Balak's second request.  Verse 20 introduces the prophecy: "וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם לַיְלָה" and the following 14 verses relay its content.  As such, both Bilam's leaving and Hashem's wrath, and the entire donkey incident, took place only in the dream and not in reality.<fn>Cf. Rambam and Ibn Kaspi who also posits that the encounter with the angel and donkey took place in a dream.  Ibn Kaspi, however, assumes that the dream begins in verse 22 and took place enroute, after Bilam left with the messengers and enraged Hashem. As Rambam speaks only in general terms it is difficult to know how much of the story he assumes took place in a vision and whether he agrees with Ralbag or Ibn Kaspi. For a similar dispute regarding the parameters of what some claim to be a prophetic dream see: <a href="Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men" data-aht="page">Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men</a>.  Both Ralbag and Rambam are conssitent in reinterpreting stories in which an angel appears to a human in physical form as being a prophetic dream (or by saying that the angel was a Divine human messenger).  In our story, the presence of a talking donkey is further motivation to reread the text.</fn></point> |
<point><b>A "וכלל ופרט"</b> – <p>Hashem's response is structured as a "כלל ופרט" (a general statement followed by details).  The prophetic dream opens with the main message expressed in words, "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה", while the rest of the dream relays the same exact message, but through visuals and a story. At the end of the story, the angel once again reiterates in speech ""</p></point> | <point><b>A "וכלל ופרט"</b> – <p>Hashem's response is structured as a "כלל ופרט" (a general statement followed by details).  The prophetic dream opens with the main message expressed in words, "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה", while the rest of the dream relays the same exact message, but through visuals and a story. At the end of the story, the angel once again reiterates in speech ""</p></point> | ||
<point><b>Why relay the message through a miraculous event?</b> This position obviates the question, as it assumes that there was no live miraculous talking donkey.<fn>This, in fact, is one of the main factors motivating commentators to read the story in this manner. See, for example, <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> who writes,</fn> Moreover it is common for prophetic dream to utilize symbols and metaphors.</point> | <point><b>Why relay the message through a miraculous event?</b> This position obviates the question, as it assumes that there was no live miraculous talking donkey.<fn>This, in fact, is one of the main factors motivating commentators to read the story in this manner. See, for example, <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> who writes,</fn> Moreover it is common for prophetic dream to utilize symbols and metaphors.</point> |
Version as of 13:44, 6 July 2019
Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam?
Exegetical Approaches
Preemptive Warning
Hashem's wrath was not a punitive reaction to wrongdoing but only a preemptive warning to ensure that Bilam proceeded according to Hashem's will.
Hashem's response is structured as a "כלל ופרט" (a general statement followed by details). The prophetic dream opens with the main message expressed in words, "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה", while the rest of the dream relays the same exact message, but through visuals and a story. At the end of the story, the angel once again reiterates in speech ""
- Hashem's anger - Hashem is not truly angry at Bilam (who has not even left yet), but relaying that if Bilam goes with the wrong intentions, he will unleash hashem's wrath.
- Miraculous speech -
Evil Intent
Hashem was angry at Bilam since he was acting in bad faith. Though Bilam knew that Hashem's intentions were that the Children of Israel be blessed, Bilam was nonetheless hoping to curse them.
- Consistent – Several sources5 suggest that, despite initial impressions, in both cases, Hashem allowed Bilam to travel (but not to curse). When Hashem said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He meant only to forbid Bilam from going if he was planning on cursing.6 Otherwise, though it would appear pointless, he was free to travel.7
- Change of plan – Ibn Ezra,8 in contrast, suggests that though initially Hashem forbade Bilam from joining the Moabites, He later gave in to Bilam's persistent requests9 and allowed him to do so despite His opposition to the idea.10 Hashem decided to let Bilam learn his lesson (the futility of his attempt to curse) the hard way.11 The point was driven home when the expected curse became a blessing.12
- "וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב" – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Malbim, and Netziv assert that the phrase "וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם" (rather than "וילך את") implies that Bilam not only physically joined the officers, but that he was also of one mind with their intentions to curse Israel.17
- "כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא" – Seforno, Or HaChayyim and R. Hirsch suggest that the somewhat extraneous word "הוּא" implies that Bilam was going to do as he pleased, according to his own agenda and not Hashem's.
- "כִּי הוֹלֵךְ" – R"Y Bekhor Shor maintains that the very fact that Bilam went with the messengers betrays his intentions. If he had been planning on abiding by God's words, what was the point of going?
- Asking a second time – The fact that Bilam does not just refuse the second set of messengers, but asks Hashem for permission again, betrays his hopes that Hashem changed His mind.18
- No mention of Hashem's condition - Bilam's omitting to share with the Moabites Hashem's caveat19 (that he could go but only say that which Hashem commands) might further suggest that he planned to ignore these instructions.20
- Punishment - Rashbam suggests that the angel was sent to punish Bilam (who emerges from the encounter lame)21 for planning to overturn Hashem's will.22 He points to Yaakov,23 Moshe,24 and Yonah25 as examples of others who tried to avoid fulfilling the mission assigned them by Hashem, and who were similarly punished.26
- Warning – Rashi and Seforno similarly assert that the angel was sent as a warning, expressing Hashem's disapproval of Bilam. However, they highlight how this was a merciful act, aimed at preventing Bilam from sinning and at aiding him to repent so as to avoid punishment.27
- All in Hashem's control – Abarbanel, Seforno, and R. Hirsch all point out how the miraculous speech of the donkey taught Bilam that just as the donkey was forced to speak against its nature, so, too, Bilam would have no choice but to say that which Hashem put in his mouth.29
- Hashem is not fickle – Prof. D. Henshke30 points out that Bilam had assumed that Hashem's decisions are arbitrary, and that He therefore could be easily influenced to change His mind.31 Hashem, thus, created a scenario in which initially Bilam assumed that his donkey was acting in an arbitrary manner, only to find out that there was a reason for his actions. Bilam was meant to learn that, despite Bilam's impressions, Hashem is never fickle.
- Humbling experience – R. Hirsch asserts that the episode was a lesson in humility. Though Bilam thought of himself as a "seer," he was proven more blind than his donkey.32 Though he assumed he could overcome Hashem's opposition and force Hashem's hand, he found that he could not even control his own donkey.
- מָה אֶקֹּב לֹא קַבֹּה אֵל – Bilam is told once again that he has no power to curse if Hashem does not desire it.
- לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב... הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה – Contrary to Bilam's thoughts, Hashem cannot be swayed to change His mind like humans are.
- כִּי לֹא נַחַשׁ בְּיַעֲקֹב – Despite all his efforts, all of Bilam's sorcery will be ineffective against Israel.
Evil Action
Hashem's anger at Bilam stemmed from Bilam's active attempts to harm Israel, his advising that the Midianites entice the Children of Israel to sin.