Difference between revisions of "Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/2"
m |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<category>Preemptive Warning | <category>Preemptive Warning | ||
<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="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>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.<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.<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> |
Version as of 14:00, 11 July 2019
Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam?
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Hashem's anger at Bilam has been explained in varying ways by commentators. Not surprisingly, given the choice between suggesting that Hashem's reaction was unjustified or finding a fault of Bilam to attribute it to, most commentators look to blame Bilam. Thus, Rashbam and others suggest that despite Hashem's warning not to curse the nation, Bilam planned to defy Hashem's will, justifiably rousing His ire. A second approach similarly vilifies Bilam, but suggests that he did not simply plan to harm the nation, but actively did so. When Hashem initially refused Bilam permission to curse Israel, Bilam devised an alternative plan, advising the Midianites to incite the nation to sin so they would no longer merit Divine protection.
A minority approach chooses not to blacken Bilam, but rather to reread the verses describing Hashem's wrath. It suggests that the description of Bilam's leaving, Hashem's anger, and the donkey incident all took place in a prophetic dream prior to Bilam's departure. As such, this was perhaps not a punitive reaction to sin, but a precautionary warning to ensure that Bilam did not err.
Preemptive Warning
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.
- Hashem's anger – Hashem's anger in the dream expresses the wrath that will be unleashed on Bilam if acts against Hashem's will.
- Angel and sword – The angel's readiness to kill highlights the severity of such a transgression, and it potential punishment.
- Talking donkey – 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.
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.
- "וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב" – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah and Malbim 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.20
- "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.21
- No mention of Hashem's conditions - Bilam's omitting to share with the Moabites Hashem's caveat22 (that he could go but only say that which Hashem commands) might further suggest that he planned to ignore these instructions.23
- Account in Devarim – When Moshe recounts the event in Devarim 23:4-7 he writes, "וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה". This formulation suggests that Bilam had different intentions than Hashem and that he was indeed plotting to curse.
- Hashem is fickle – Rashi and R. Hirsch point out that though Bilam was fully aware of Hashem's opposition to his cursing, his pagan view of gods led him to believe that Hashem was like a human, who might be swayed to change His mind by sacrifices24 or magical practices.25 This would explain why Bilam continuously seeks the Divine word despite planning on cursing the nation; he recognizes that Divine consent is necessary, but hopes that he can influence it.
- Magic trumps Hashem – Alternatively, Bilam believed that his curses or other magical rites had the power to harm even without Hashem's sanction.26 If so, though, it is not clear why he bothered to ask for Hashem's permission.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.35
- Hashem is not fickle – Prof. D. Henshke36 points out that Bilam had assumed that Hashem's decisions are arbitrary, and that He therefore could be easily influenced to change His mind.37 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.38 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 the Midianites to entice the nation to sin.