Difference between revisions of "Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<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 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>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> | + | <point><b>An envelope structure</b> – <p>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""</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 | + | <point><b>Verses 35: "וַיֵּלֶךְ בִּלְעָם עִם שָׂרֵי בָלָק"</b> – According to this approach, this verse does not mean that Bilam resumed his journey, Rather it is first now that Bilam sets off.  It is for this reason that the verse utilizes the language of "Bilam went" rather than "Bilam continued on his way" as one would have expected had this been a continuation rather than the beginning of his journey.</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Why relay the message through a miraculous event?</b> This position obviates the question, as it assumes that there was no miracle, since the donkey spoke only in the 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 writes,</fn> As it is common for prophetic dream to utilize symbols and metaphors and not just speech, the fact that Hashem chose to do so here as well is natural.</point> |
+ | <point><b>Symbolism of the dream's details</b> – The various details relayed in the dream are each meant to reinforce Hashem's initial warning message - that Bilam may go, but that he must say that which Hashem tells him:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li>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 | + | <li><b>Hashem's anger</b> - Hashem is not truly angry at Bilam (who has not even left yet), but only relaying that if Bilam goes with the wrong intentions, he will then unleash Hashem's wrath. </li> |
− | <li>Miraculous speech -</li> | + | <li><b>Angel and sword</b> - This message is strengthened by the angel's readiness to kill.</li> |
+ | <li><b>Miraculous speech</b> - Hashem emphasizes how Bilam is only a tool in Hashem's hands who can control all that comes out of his o  mouth. Just as Hashem can make the dumb speak, he make Bilam quiet. </li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Was Bilam planning on cursing?</b> According to this approach, Bilam was not planning on acting against Hashem's will, as evidenced by the fact that he consistently asks Hashem what to do.  If he were simply planning on doing as he pleased, why bother?</point> |
− | <point> | + | <point><b>Why such a strong warning?</b> If Bilam, had no evil intent, though, why was such strong warning necessary? Bilam's pestering of Hashem to see what He would respond to the second set of messengers, despite knowing that Hashem had already forbade him from cursing,  betrayed that Bilam was in doubt about Hashem's true desires. Perhaps he thought that Hashem might change His mind, or perhaps he simply had not yet sufficiently internalized the message. Either way, Hashem decided that a stronger message needed to be relayed.</point> |
+ | <point><b>Does Hashem change His mind after giving Bilam permission to go?</b> One of the advantages of (and motivations for) this approach is that it presents Hashem as being consistent throughout the story.  He does not grant permission to go, only to get angry at Bilam when he acts upon it, and then once again return to grant permission. However, it must still explain why Hashem appears to change His mind between the first and second visits (originally telling Bilam not to go, only to permit it afterwards). Ralbag explains that really in Hashem's first response, too, he only meant to forbid going if this was with the intent to curse.<fn>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 He means by "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם" - don't go if you plan on cursing.</fn></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>No messengers</b></point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Evil Intent | <category>Evil Intent |
Version as of 14:52, 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 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""
- Hashem's anger - Hashem is not truly angry at Bilam (who has not even left yet), but only relaying that if Bilam goes with the wrong intentions, he will then unleash Hashem's wrath.
- Angel and sword - This message is strengthened by the angel's readiness to kill.
- Miraculous speech - Hashem emphasizes how Bilam is only a tool in Hashem's hands who can control all that comes out of his o mouth. Just as Hashem can make the dumb speak, he make Bilam quiet.
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 sources6 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.7 Otherwise, though it would appear pointless, he was free to travel.8
- Change of plan – Ibn Ezra,9 in contrast, suggests that though initially Hashem forbade Bilam from joining the Moabites, He later gave in to Bilam's persistent requests10 and allowed him to do so despite His opposition to the idea.11 Hashem decided to let Bilam learn his lesson (the futility of his attempt to curse) the hard way.12 The point was driven home when the expected curse became a blessing.13
- "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.18
- "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.19
- No mention of Hashem's condition - Bilam's omitting to share with the Moabites Hashem's caveat20 (that he could go but only say that which Hashem commands) might further suggest that he planned to ignore these instructions.21
- Punishment - Rashbam suggests that the angel was sent to punish Bilam (who emerges from the encounter lame)22 for planning to overturn Hashem's will.23 He points to Yaakov,24 Moshe,25 and Yonah26 as examples of others who tried to avoid fulfilling the mission assigned them by Hashem, and who were similarly punished.27
- 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.28
- 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.30
- Hashem is not fickle – Prof. D. Henshke31 points out that Bilam had assumed that Hashem's decisions are arbitrary, and that He therefore could be easily influenced to change His mind.32 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.33 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.