Difference between revisions of "Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
<p>Hashem's wrath was expressed only in a prophetic dream prior to Bilam's departure, and constituted part of Hashem's response to Bilam's request to join the Moabites.  As such, it was not a punitive reaction to wrongdoing, but only part of a preemptive warning to ensure that Bilam proceeded according to Hashem's will.</p> | <p>Hashem's wrath was expressed only in a prophetic dream prior to Bilam's departure, and constituted part of Hashem's response to Bilam's request to join the Moabites.  As such, it was not a punitive reaction to wrongdoing, but only part of a preemptive warning to ensure that Bilam proceeded according to Hashem's will.</p> | ||
<mekorot>Opinion cited by <multilink><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-20" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-20" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-14,18-20</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-21-41" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:21-22,34-35,41</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink><fn>Malbim cites this opinion in the name of Ibn Ezra, but nowhere in Ibn Ezra's commentary on the chapter is this position explicit.</fn></mekorot> | <mekorot>Opinion cited by <multilink><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-20" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-20" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-14,18-20</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-21-41" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:21-22,34-35,41</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink><fn>Malbim cites this opinion in the name of Ibn Ezra, but nowhere in Ibn Ezra's commentary on the chapter is this position explicit.</fn></mekorot> | ||
| − | <point><b>The scope of Hashem's response to Bilam</b> – Though most readers assume that Hashem's response to Bilam's second request constitutes but one sentence, "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה" (v. 20), <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-13-33" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-13-33" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:13-35</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>, and perhaps <multilink><a href="MorehNevukhim2-42" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamShemonahPerakim7" data-aht="source">Shemonah Perakim 7</a><a href="RambamHilkhotYesodeiHaTorah7-1" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 7:1</a><a href="MorehNevukhim2-42" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 2:42</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink>,<fn>Rambam is somewhat ambiguous as to the scope of the prophecy.  Though he might agree with Ralbag that there is but one dream that extends from verse 20 through verse 35, his words "כן ענין בלעם כולו ׳<b>בדרך</b>׳<b> ודברי ה׳אתון׳</b> - הכל ׳במראה הנבואה׳" might suggest that he thinks that only the angel-donkey episode (verses 22b-35) took place in a dream. If so, Hashem's initial response is limited to verse 20, and this second dream regarding the angel and donkey is a distinct event, coming in reaction to Bilam's departure. Cf. Ibn Kaspi who explicitly posits that only the encounter with the angel and donkey took place in a dream and that it occurred en route, after Bilam left with the messengers and enraged Hashem. He posits that the dream represented Bilam's own doubts as to whether he should have embarked on the journey.<br/>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>.</fn> uniquely posit that all of <a href="Bemidbar22-21-41" data-aht="source">verses 20-35</a> were part of this response.<fn>Both Ralbag and Rambam are consistent here 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 provides further motivation to reread the story as taking place in a dream. For more on their positions, see<a href="Philosophy:Angels – Spiritual or Physical" data-aht="page">Angels – Spiritual or Physical</a>, <a href="Commentators:R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="page">Ralbag</a> and <a href="Commentators:R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="page">Rambam</a>.<br/>Despite Ralbag's understanding that Hashem's wrath was expressed only in a dream, he differs from this position in assuming that it was a response to Bilam's soon-to-be attempt to curse the nation. As opposed to this approach, which reads Bilam as having no evil intent, Ralbag views Bilam as wickedly intending to harm the Children of Israel. <br/> It is difficult to know how Rambam reads the story as he only speaks of it in passing. In his commentary on Mishnah Avot, he describes Bilam as wicked and intending to curse the nation, unlike the position developed here.  In Moreh Nevukhim 2:5, however, Rambam implies that Bilam might have begun his career positively and only turned evil later (writing of him, בעת שהיה טוב).  If so, it is possible that in the Moreh, Rambam is assuming that during the Balak episode Bilam was still somewhat obedient.</fn>  As such, Bilam's departure of verse 21, Hashem's wrath, and the entire donkey incident, all took place in this prophetic dream and not in reality.<fn>It is only at the end of <a href="Bemidbar22-21-41" data-aht="source">verse 35</a> that Bilam first actually departs with the Moabites. This might be supported by the fact that the verse uses the language, "Bilam went" rather than "Bilam continued on his way" or the like, as would be expected had this been a continuation rather than the beginning of his journey.</fn>  Together they served as a visual metaphor which mirrored Hashem's original verbal warning, that Bilam relay only that which Hashem commands him.<fn>As such, Hashem's response has an envelope structure. 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 echoes the opening speech, "‎לֵךְ עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶפֶס אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תְדַבֵּר".‎</fn></point> | + | <point><b>The scope of Hashem's response to Bilam</b> – Though most readers assume that Hashem's response to Bilam's second request constitutes but one sentence, "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה" (v. 20), <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-13-33" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-13-33" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:13-35</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>, and perhaps <multilink><a href="MorehNevukhim2-42" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamCommentaryontheMishnaAvot5-19" data-aht="source">Commentary on the Mishna Avot 5:19</a><a href="RambamShemonahPerakim7" data-aht="source">Shemonah Perakim 7</a><a href="RambamHilkhotYesodeiHaTorah7-1" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 7:1</a><a href="MorehNevukhim2-42" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 2:42</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink>,<fn>Rambam is somewhat ambiguous as to the scope of the prophecy.  Though he might agree with Ralbag that there is but one dream that extends from verse 20 through verse 35, his words "כן ענין בלעם כולו ׳<b>בדרך</b>׳<b> ודברי ה׳אתון׳</b> - הכל ׳במראה הנבואה׳" might suggest that he thinks that only the angel-donkey episode (verses 22b-35) took place in a dream. If so, Hashem's initial response is limited to verse 20, and this second dream regarding the angel and donkey is a distinct event, coming in reaction to Bilam's departure. Cf. Ibn Kaspi who explicitly posits that only the encounter with the angel and donkey took place in a dream and that it occurred en route, after Bilam left with the messengers and enraged Hashem. He posits that the dream represented Bilam's own doubts as to whether he should have embarked on the journey.<br/>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>.</fn> uniquely posit that all of <a href="Bemidbar22-21-41" data-aht="source">verses 20-35</a> were part of this response.<fn>Both Ralbag and Rambam are consistent here 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 provides further motivation to reread the story as taking place in a dream. For more on their positions, see <a href="Philosophy:Angels – Spiritual or Physical" data-aht="page">Angels – Spiritual or Physical</a>, <a href="Commentators:R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="page">Ralbag</a> and <a href="Commentators:R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="page">Rambam</a>.<br/>Despite Ralbag's understanding that Hashem's wrath was expressed only in a dream, he differs from this position in assuming that it was a response to Bilam's soon-to-be attempt to curse the nation. As opposed to this approach, which reads Bilam as having no evil intent, Ralbag views Bilam as wickedly intending to harm the Children of Israel. <br/> It is difficult to know how Rambam reads the story as he only speaks of it in passing. In his commentary on Mishnah Avot, he describes Bilam as wicked and intending to curse the nation, unlike the position developed here.  In Moreh Nevukhim 2:5, however, Rambam implies that Bilam might have begun his career positively and only turned evil later (writing of him, בעת שהיה טוב).  If so, it is possible that in the Moreh Nevukhim, Rambam is assuming that during the Balak episode, Bilam was still somewhat obedient.</fn>  As such, Bilam's departure of verse 21, Hashem's wrath, and the entire donkey incident, all took place in this prophetic dream and not in reality.<fn>It is only at the end of <a href="Bemidbar22-21-41" data-aht="source">verse 35</a> that Bilam first actually departs with the Moabites. This might be supported by the fact that the verse uses the language, "Bilam went" rather than "Bilam continued on his way" or the like, as would be expected had this been a continuation rather than the beginning of his journey.</fn>  Together they served as a visual metaphor which mirrored Hashem's original verbal warning, that Bilam relay only that which Hashem commands him.<fn>As such, Hashem's response has an envelope structure. 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 echoes the opening speech, "‎לֵךְ עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶפֶס אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תְדַבֵּר".‎</fn></point> |
| − | <point><b>Feigned anger</b> – According to this reading, Hashem's anger is only feigned, a way of expressing the consequences that will incur if Bilam veers from Hashem's words. As such, it need not be read as a reaction to any previous wrongdoing, but only as a precautionary warning. | + | <point><b>Feigned anger</b> – According to this reading, Hashem's anger is only feigned, a way of expressing the consequences that will incur if Bilam veers from Hashem's words. As such, it need not be read as a reaction to any previous wrongdoing, but only as a precautionary warning.</point> |
<point><b>Symbolism of the dream's details</b> – The various details relayed in the dream each serve to reinforce Hashem's initial warning message, "קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה":<br/> | <point><b>Symbolism of the dream's details</b> – The various details relayed in the dream each serve to reinforce Hashem's initial warning message, "קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה":<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
<li><b>Talking donkey</b> – Through the image of a talking donkey, Hashem emphasizes how He is control of His creatures' speech and that Bilam is only a tool in Hashem's hands, capable of saying only that which Hashem allows.</li> | <li><b>Talking donkey</b> – Through the image of a talking donkey, Hashem emphasizes how He is control of His creatures' speech and that Bilam is only a tool in Hashem's hands, capable of saying only that which Hashem allows.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Necessity of the warning</b> – According to this approach, Bilam, on the whole, was an obedient servant, with no active intentions of defying Hashem's word, as evidenced by his constant seeking of Divine approval for his actions.<fn>If he were simply planning on defying God, why bother to ask for permission?</fn> Nonetheless, his pestering of Hashem in <a href="Bemidbar22" data-aht="source">verse 19</a> , despite knowing that Hashem had already forbade him from cursing, betrayed that Bilam was enticed by the prospect of a huge fee.<fn>According to this reading when Bilam says to the officers, "אִם יִתֶּן לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת פִּי י״י" he is actually betraying his true desires, a house worth of riches. Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor and Abarbanel who also suggest that Bilam might have been motivated to join the Moabites mainly for financial gain. However, they both assume that Bilam departed with the intention of cursing the nation and that even after Hashem expressed his wrath, | + | <point><b>Necessity of the warning</b> – According to this approach, Bilam, on the whole, was an obedient servant, with no active intentions of defying Hashem's word, as evidenced by his constant seeking of Divine approval for his actions.<fn>If he were simply planning on defying God, why bother to ask for permission?</fn> Nonetheless, his pestering of Hashem in <a href="Bemidbar22" data-aht="source">verse 19</a> , despite knowing that Hashem had already forbade him from cursing, betrayed that Bilam was enticed by the prospect of a huge fee.<fn>According to this reading when Bilam says to the officers, "אִם יִתֶּן לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת פִּי י״י" he is actually betraying his true desires, a house worth of riches. Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor and Abarbanel who also suggest that Bilam might have been motivated to join the Moabites mainly for financial gain. However, they both assume that Bilam departed with the intention of cursing the nation and that even after Hashem expressed his wrath, Bilam nonetheless attempted to circumvent Hashem's will.</fn> Recognizing that this was a potential stumbling block, Hashem wanted to counter Bilam's desire for riches with a heavy douse of fear.</point> |
| − | <point><b>Does Hashem change His mind?</b> One of the advantages of (and motivations for) this approach is that it presents Hashem as being consistent throughout.  Hashem's permission in verse 20, his wrath  of verse 21, and the angel's reiteration of Hashem's permission in verse 35 <fn>The question of why the angel does not introduce a new directive after expressing Hashem's wrath is not an issue for this approach. There is no new message because nothing has changed. All along the angel had only been elaborating on Hashem's initial warning, so it is appropriate that he repeat it verbatim at the end.</fn> all amount to one message, that though Bilam may go, he must say only that which Hashem tells him.<fn>This approach, however, must still explain why Hashem appears to change His mind between the first and second visits of the Moabites, first forbidding Bilam from going and then permitting him. Ralbag explains that there really is no difference between the two responses. In Hashem's first response, too, He only meant to forbid Bilam from going in order to curse. When Hashem says "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם", He is not forbidding two distinct actions (both going and cursing). Rather the phrase "לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם" comes to explain what | + | <point><b>Does Hashem change His mind?</b> One of the advantages of (and motivations for) this approach is that it presents Hashem as being consistent throughout.  Hashem's permission in verse 20, his wrath  of verse 21, and the angel's reiteration of Hashem's permission in verse 35 <fn>The question of why the angel does not introduce a new directive after expressing Hashem's wrath is not an issue for this approach. There is no new message because nothing has changed. All along the angel had only been elaborating on Hashem's initial warning, so it is appropriate that he repeat it verbatim at the end.</fn> all amount to one message, that though Bilam may go, he must say only that which Hashem tells him.<fn>This approach, however, must still explain why Hashem appears to change His mind between the first and second visits of the Moabites, first forbidding Bilam from going and then permitting him. Ralbag explains that there really is no difference between the two responses. In Hashem's first response, too, He only meant to forbid Bilam from going in order to curse. When Hashem says "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם", He is not forbidding two distinct actions (both going and cursing). Rather, the phrase "לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם" comes to explain what Hashem means by "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם" – don't go if you plan on cursing.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Why relay the message through a miraculous event?</b> This position obviates the question as it assumes that there was no miracle, but only a vision.<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 questions, "לאי־זה תועלת הוצרך להתחדש אז על דרך המופת שתדבר האתון.... והוא מבואר שה׳ יתעלה לא יחדש המופתים ללא צורך".</fn> As it is common for prophetic dreams to utilize symbols and metaphors and not just speech, the fact that Hashem chose to do so here is natural.</point> | <point><b>Why relay the message through a miraculous event?</b> This position obviates the question as it assumes that there was no miracle, but only a vision.<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 questions, "לאי־זה תועלת הוצרך להתחדש אז על דרך המופת שתדבר האתון.... והוא מבואר שה׳ יתעלה לא יחדש המופתים ללא צורך".</fn> As it is common for prophetic dreams to utilize symbols and metaphors and not just speech, the fact that Hashem chose to do so here is natural.</point> | ||
<point><b>Did the dream accomplish its goal?</b> Bilam heeded Hashem's warning and did not attempt to defy Hashem's will. Thus, even when Balak hints that he is willing to honor Bilam with a handsome reward ("לָמָּה לֹא הָלַכְתָּ אֵלָי הַאֻמְנָם לֹא אוּכַל כַּבְּדֶךָ"), Bilam is not swayed and immediately emphasizes that he has no power but to say that which Hashem puts in his mouth.<fn>Throughout the rest of the story, as well, he consistently repeats this message.</fn></point> | <point><b>Did the dream accomplish its goal?</b> Bilam heeded Hashem's warning and did not attempt to defy Hashem's will. Thus, even when Balak hints that he is willing to honor Bilam with a handsome reward ("לָמָּה לֹא הָלַכְתָּ אֵלָי הַאֻמְנָם לֹא אוּכַל כַּבְּדֶךָ"), Bilam is not swayed and immediately emphasizes that he has no power but to say that which Hashem puts in his mouth.<fn>Throughout the rest of the story, as well, he consistently repeats this message.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא הָלַךְ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם לִקְרַאת נְחָשִׁים"</b> – This verse does not suggest that Bilam had been attempting to use magic so as to circumvent Hashem's will.  Rather, as was his usual wont, he gave sacrifices and engaged in Divination in order to seek the Divine word.</point> | <point><b>"וְלֹא הָלַךְ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם לִקְרַאת נְחָשִׁים"</b> – This verse does not suggest that Bilam had been attempting to use magic so as to circumvent Hashem's will.  Rather, as was his usual wont, he gave sacrifices and engaged in Divination in order to seek the Divine word.</point> | ||
| − | <point><b>"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם"</b> – This position might suggest that even after our story, Bilam does not actively attempt to harm Israel.  It might explain, as does <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra | + | <point><b>"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם"</b> – This position might suggest that even after our story, Bilam does not actively attempt to harm Israel.  It might explain, as does <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source"><multilink data-aht="<a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:20</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar23-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:21</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a>"></multilink></a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar23-21" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar23-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:21</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>,<fn>See also <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar25-1" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-18,22,23,35</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar23-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:1</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar23-13" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:13</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar24-1-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1-2</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar25-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 25:1</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>. Both Ibn Ezra and R"Y Bekhor Shor, however, assume that even if Bilam was not responsible for the idea to induce Israel to sin, he nonetheless attempted to harm Israel.  For example, R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that after the Sin at Baal Peor, the Midianites once again hired Bilam to curse, assuming that this time, when the nation no longer deserved protection, he would be successful.  It was for this reason that he was at the battlefield during the war.</fn> that this verse does not mean that Bilam actively counseled the Midianites to entice Israel into sin, but rather that they learned to do so through his speech. In the middle of Bilam's second blessing, he says, "לֹא הִבִּיט אָוֶן בְּיַעֲקֹב וְלֹא רָאָה עָמָל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל".  The Midianites understood from this that though the Children of Israel are untouchable when innocent, they are vulnerable when they sin.<fn>According to this reading, the mention of Bilam among the dead in the war against Midyan is somewhat difficult, as he did nothing to deserve death. This position might answer that the verse does not say that Bilam was targeted, but simply that he was among those killed. Nonetheless, there would seem to be no reason for the Torah to share such a fact. Moreover, it is not clear why Bilam would be at the battle at all, let alone why he would be on the Midianite side.</fn></point> |
| − | <point><b>Moshe's recounting of the event</b> – Moshe's words, "וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה" are somewhat difficult for this approach, as they assume that Bilam had been plotting to harm the nation.  This approach might suggest that these words represent the perspective of the Children of Israel.<fn>This possibility encounters difficulty from the formulation in Yehoshua, which has Hashem Himself say, "וְלֹא אָבִיתִי לִשְׁמֹעַ לְבִלְעָם".</fn> The Israelites likely knew only that Bilam had joined Balak, <fn>See <a href="Why Worry About Bilam" data-aht="page">Why Worry About Bilam</a> for various opinions regarding to what extent the Children of Israel were aware of the entire incident.</fn> and logically assumed that he did so with intent to curse, even though he had not.</point> | + | <point><b>Moshe's recounting of the event</b> – Moshe's words, "וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה" are somewhat difficult for this approach, as they assume that Bilam had been plotting to harm the nation.  This approach might suggest that these words represent the perspective of the Children of Israel.<fn>This possibility encounters difficulty from the formulation in Yehoshua, which has Hashem Himself say, "וְלֹא אָבִיתִי לִשְׁמֹעַ לְבִלְעָם".</fn> The Israelites likely knew only that Bilam had joined Balak,<fn>See <a href="Why Worry About Bilam" data-aht="page">Why Worry About Bilam</a> for various opinions regarding to what extent the Children of Israel were aware of the entire incident.</fn> and logically assumed that he did so with intent to curse, even though he had not.</point> |
<point><b>Name of Hashem</b> – Bilam's consistent use of the proper name of Hashem, (שם הויה) suggests that he recognized Hashem's supreme authority. The very fact that he merited prophecy further suggests that he was loyal to Hashem. Together, these points support this position's suggestion that Bilam did not leave with any intent to defy Hashem.</point> | <point><b>Name of Hashem</b> – Bilam's consistent use of the proper name of Hashem, (שם הויה) suggests that he recognized Hashem's supreme authority. The very fact that he merited prophecy further suggests that he was loyal to Hashem. Together, these points support this position's suggestion that Bilam did not leave with any intent to defy Hashem.</point> | ||
<point><b>Disappearance of Balak's messengers</b> – The fact that Balak's messengers are absent from the donkey incident is expected according to this approach.  As the whole incident took place in a vision before Bilam set off with them, there is no reason for them to be present.</point> | <point><b>Disappearance of Balak's messengers</b> – The fact that Balak's messengers are absent from the donkey incident is expected according to this approach.  As the whole incident took place in a vision before Bilam set off with them, there is no reason for them to be present.</point> | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
<category>Evil Intent | <category>Evil Intent | ||
<p>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.</p> | <p>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.</p> | ||
| − | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RashiBemidbar22-9-35" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBemidbar22-9-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:18-26,28-30,32-35</a><a href="RashiBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="RashiBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashbamBemidbar22-22-33" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit32-29" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:29</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar22-22-33" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:22-25,33</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:20</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar23-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:21</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-18,22,23,35</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar23-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:1</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar23-13" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:13</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar24-1-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1-2</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar25-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 25:1</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar22-12-34" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar22-12-34" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-13,15,19-24</a><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>,  <multilink><a href="RambanBemidbar22-13-35" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanBemidbar22-13-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:13,20,35</a><a href="RambanBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="RambanBemidbar25-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 25:1</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink>#2,<fn>See Ramban's words, "גם יתכן שהיה חפץ ההולך לקלל את העם, ולא היה חפצו לברכם בשום פנים" in his comments to v. 35.  According to Ramban, though, Hashem's initial anger at Bilam related to his not sharing with the messengers Hashem's caveat, that even though he was permitted to accompany the officers, he would not be able to curse the nation.  This had the potential to cause a desecration of Hashem's name, for when Bilam blessed the nation, the Moabites would assume that Hashem had gone back on His word.</fn> | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RashiBemidbar22-9-35" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBemidbar22-9-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:18-26,28-30,32-35</a><a href="RashiBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="RashiBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashbamBemidbar22-22-33" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit32-29" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:29</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar22-22-33" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:22-25,33</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:20</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar23-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:21</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-18,22,23,35</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar23-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:1</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar23-13" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:13</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar24-1-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1-2</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar25-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 25:1</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar22-12-34" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar22-12-34" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-13,15,19-24</a><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>,  <multilink><a href="RambanBemidbar22-13-35" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanBemidbar22-13-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:13,20,35</a><a href="RambanBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="RambanBemidbar25-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 25:1</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> #2,<fn>See Ramban's words, "גם יתכן שהיה חפץ ההולך לקלל את העם, ולא היה חפצו לברכם בשום פנים" in his comments to v. 35.  According to Ramban, though, Hashem's initial anger at Bilam related to his not sharing with the messengers Hashem's caveat, that even though he was permitted to accompany the officers, he would not be able to curse the nation.  This had the potential to cause a desecration of Hashem's name, for when Bilam blessed the nation, the Moabites would assume that Hashem had gone back on His word.</fn> <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-7" 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>, <multilink><a href="SefornoBemidbar22-12-38" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoBemidbar22-12-38" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12,20,22-23,28,30,32-38</a><a href="SefornoBemidbar22-41" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:41</a><a href="SefornoBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="SefornoBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="OrHaChayyimBemidbar22-13-38" data-aht="source">Or HaChayyim</a><a href="OrHaChayyimBemidbar22-13-38" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:13,20,22-23</a><a href="OrHaChayyimBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="R. Chayyim b. Atar (Or HaChayyim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chayyim b. Atar</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12,22,35</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RSRHirschBemidbar22-12-39" data-aht="source">R. S.R. Hirsch</a><a href="RSRHirschBemidbar22-12-39" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-15,18,20-22, 27-29, 34-36</a><a href="RSRHirschBemidbar23-3" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:3</a><a href="RSRHirschBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="RSRHirschBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch</a></multilink>,<multilink><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-20" data-aht="source"> Malbim</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-20" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-14,18-20</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-21-41" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:21-22,34-35,41</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar24-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar24-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:14</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink></mekorot> |
| − | <point><b>Did Hashem change His mind?</b> All these sources assume that Hashem did not fundamentally change His mind throughout our story.  From start to finish, His main objection was to Bilam's cursing the nation, while the question of whether or not he joined the Moabites was secondary.<fn>On the question of whether Hashem was consistent with regards to Bilam's accompanying of the officers, these sources disagree.  R"Y Bekhor Shor, Chizkuni (his first explanation), Ralbag, and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, suggest that, despite initial impressions, in <i>both</i> cases, Hashem allowed Bilam to travel but not to curse. When Hashem said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He meant only to forbid Bilam from going <i>if</i> he was planning on cursing.  HaKetav VeHakabbalah and Malbim attempt to bring linguistic support for this claim. They differentiate between the phrases "לֵךְ עִם" and "לֵךְ את", suggesting that while "לֵךְ את" refers to a physical accompaniment, "לֵךְ עִם" means to be of one mind. As such, when Hashem initially said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He meant only that Bilam not go with the intent to curse the people, but not that he could not physically accompany Balak's officers. <br/>In contrast, Ibn Ezra (see also Chizkuni and <multilink><a href="AkeidatYitzchakBemidbarPeirush22" data-aht="source">Akeidat Yitzchak</a><a href="AkeidatYitzchakBemidbarPeirush22" data-aht="source">Bemidbar Peirush 22</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Arama (Akeidat Yitzchak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Arama</a></multilink>) suggests that though initially Hashem forbade Bilam from joining the Moabites, He later gave in to Bilam's persistent requests. Despite His opposition to Bilam's going, Hashem decided to let Bilam learn his lesson (the futility of his attempt to curse) the hard way. He compare the episode to the sin of the Spies. There, too, | + | <point><b>Did Hashem change His mind?</b> All these sources assume that Hashem did not fundamentally change His mind throughout our story.  From start to finish, His main objection was to Bilam's cursing the nation, while the question of whether or not he joined the Moabites was secondary.<fn>On the question of whether Hashem was consistent with regards to Bilam's accompanying of the officers, these sources disagree.  R"Y Bekhor Shor, Chizkuni (his first explanation), Ralbag, and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, suggest that, despite initial impressions, in <i>both</i> cases, Hashem allowed Bilam to travel but not to curse. When Hashem said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He meant only to forbid Bilam from going <i>if</i> he was planning on cursing.  HaKetav VeHakabbalah and Malbim attempt to bring linguistic support for this claim. They differentiate between the phrases "לֵךְ עִם" and "לֵךְ את", suggesting that while "לֵךְ את" refers to a physical accompaniment, "לֵךְ עִם" means to be of one mind. As such, when Hashem initially said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He meant only that Bilam not go with the intent to curse the people, but not that he could not physically accompany Balak's officers. <br/>In contrast, Ibn Ezra (see also Chizkuni's third possibility, and <multilink><a href="AkeidatYitzchakBemidbarPeirush22" data-aht="source">Akeidat Yitzchak</a><a href="AkeidatYitzchakBemidbarPeirush22" data-aht="source">Bemidbar Peirush 22</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Arama (Akeidat Yitzchak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Arama</a></multilink>) suggests that though initially Hashem forbade Bilam from joining the Moabites, He later gave in to Bilam's persistent requests. Despite His opposition to Bilam's going, Hashem decided to let Bilam learn his lesson (the futility of his attempt to curse) the hard way. He compare the episode to the sin of the Spies. There, too, Hashem only reluctantly gave in to the nation's pressure.  Though He knew the mission was a mistake and was to end badly, He allowed the people to discover this for themselves. Cf. Rav Huna in <multilink><a href="BavliMakkot10b" data-aht="source">Bavli Makkot 10b</a><a href="BavliMakkot10b" data-aht="source">Makkot 10b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, that this incident teaches that "בַּדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתוֹ". Hashem assists a person to follow the path upon which he desires to proceed.</fn> Thus, when Bilam departed with the intention of cursing, Hashem was justifiably filled with wrath.</point> |
<point><b>Evidence of Bilam's evil intent</b> – As there is no explicit mention in the text that Bilam had any evil intent,<fn>To the contrary, the verse imply that he was innocently heeding Hashem's words.</fn> these sources mine the text for clues to support their contention:<br/> | <point><b>Evidence of Bilam's evil intent</b> – As there is no explicit mention in the text that Bilam had any evil intent,<fn>To the contrary, the verse imply that he was innocently heeding Hashem's words.</fn> these sources mine the text for clues to support their contention:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Version as of 14:14, 11 July 2019
Fatal 38: Unescaped '<' not allowed in attributes values
28: <point><b>"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם"</b> – This position might suggest that even after our story, Bilam does not actively attempt to harm Israel.  It might explain, as does <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source"><multilink data-aht="<a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:20</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar23-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:21</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a>"></multilink></a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar23-21" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar23-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:21</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>,<fn>See also <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar25-1" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-18,22,23,35</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar23-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:1</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar23-13" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:13</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar24-1-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 24:1-2</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar25-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 25:1</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>. Both Ibn Ezra and R"Y Bekhor Shor, however, assume that even if Bilam was not responsible for the idea to induce Israel to sin, he nonetheless attempted to harm Israel.  For example, R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that after the Sin at Baal Peor, the Midianites once again hired Bilam to curse, assuming that this time, when the nation no longer deserved protection, he would be successful.  It was for this reason that he was at the battlefield during the war.</fn> that this verse does not mean that Bilam actively counseled the Midianites to entice Israel into sin, but rather that they learned to do so through his speech. In the middle of Bilam's second blessing, he says, "לֹא הִבִּיט אָוֶן בְּיַעֲקֹב וְלֹא רָאָה עָמָל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל".  The Midianites understood from this that though the Children of Israel are untouchable when innocent, they are vulnerable when they sin.<fn>According to this reading, the mention of Bilam among the dead in the war against Midyan is somewhat difficult, as he did nothing to deserve death. This position might answer that the verse does not say that Bilam was targeted, but simply that he was among those killed. Nonetheless, there would seem to be no reason for the Torah to share such a fact. Moreover, it is not clear why Bilam would be at the battle at all, let alone why he would be on the Midianite side.</fn></point>