Chasidut sur Les Nombres 22:42
Tiferet Shlomo
Numbers 22:2: There are many questions about this. First, why reference what the Jews did specifically to the Amorites? Why the redundancy in Moab's expression (terrified / disgusted)? Why say Balak saw it if the whole world also saw it? Also, it says here that they were disgusted, the same language used by the Egyptians. Why? The answer is found in the early books that the whole point of the Exile is that there should be more converts. It says that in Egypt, the more that Jews were in pain, the more they increased. How? Through converts. That's the meaning of 'disgusted' since the Jews were like thorns in their lives because the nation felt like they needed to convert. This is the difference between Balak and Bilaam. Bilaam said "Let my soul die the death of the just", he was hoping to be among the Jews and he was killed by the Jews. Balak hated the Jews and he saw that some Amorites became Jewish. That's the meaning of the verse that he saw what the Jews did to Amorites--that his nation was converting into Jews. That's why he was afraid of them growing is because the Jews were taking away the sparks of holiness (via conversion). This explains Yosef where buying the grain, grain = _bar_ (which equals to 202), hinting to 202 sparks. Elsewhere, Hashem hovered over the world, (hovering equals) to 288 spark. That's the meaning that Moab was disgusted because of the Jewish people. They were disgusted that some would convert to Judaism. This also explains the verse "and now the community will chew us up"--why is it the community? It's hinting to the sparks of holiness which was taken from the nation by the Jews via conversion. That's why the verse says "don't curse the people because they're blessed"-- sometimes a person can be ruined by the sparks of holiness leaving him. Which is why Balak says "please curse them for me" and "bring a strange fire to the Jewish people" to consume their G-dly sparks and through this they will be ruined. Balak says maybe "I will kill them and drive them out". Hashem said that even that method [using their sparks] can't be used since He protects them from klipa. Balak saw all that the Jewish people did and was afraid. Why didn't he mention Sihon or Og? Also, what did he see more than anyone else? The answer is that the sages say that the main thing that Balak saw was that they were victorious in a miracle way-- it wasn't thanks to military might, but rather that Hashem was helping. When he saw this, he tried to circumvent by using prayer but Hashem is far from the wicked and he listens to the prayer of the righteous. When he saw his prayer wasn't going to be accepted because it was disgusting, he decided to see what was the special reason that He answers the Jewish people and not him. He saw there was a lot of purity and holiness and kavanah before the prayer goes to Hashem. There needs to be a lot of good deeds and teshuva before prayer (in order for the prayer to make an impact). Then the prayers come before Hashem with humility. He was very afraid and felt his bones rotting because he couldn't do this. He was disgusted because the service was very great and called for Bilaam who could figure this out. This also explains the use of Amorites, which is similar to amori =speaking, which shows all the preparation and teshuva and purity done through words by the Jewish people.That's why he was afriad because their service was great and he was disgusted and he sent for Bilaam.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 22,3. “Moab was greatly afraid of the people because they were so numerous; Moab greatly dreaded the Children of Israel.”
Judging by the fact that the Torah distinguishes the feelings of the Moabites vis a vis העם, the “people,” and subsequently vis a vis the בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel”, we are entitled to assume that the term העם refers to the fellow travelers, the mixed multitude that had attached themselves to the Israelites at the time of the Exodus. (Compare Sh’mot Rabbah 42,6)
According to the Zohar, the fear of the Moabites was due to their having noticed that wherever the Israelites encamped (40th year near the Jordan river) many gentiles would join them and convert to Judaism, so that the word העם, here does not refer to the mixed multitude that had joined the Israelites already at the Exodus. [I have not found this Zohar, Ed.] Balak or his people were afraid that if the Israelites were to encamp near them, many Moabites would convert to Judaism and join them. [The legislation that Moabites were not allowed to convert (Deuteronomy 23,4) had not yet been made public. Ed.] The next line describing the mental state of the Moabites as being one of dread of the Israelites, explains that whereas normally, Balak could not have cared less, here the fact that the Moabites were in such dread of the Israelites caused him to fear wholesale defection among his people to the Israelites as a real possibility. Balak was a great anti-Semite.
Judging by the fact that the Torah distinguishes the feelings of the Moabites vis a vis העם, the “people,” and subsequently vis a vis the בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel”, we are entitled to assume that the term העם refers to the fellow travelers, the mixed multitude that had attached themselves to the Israelites at the time of the Exodus. (Compare Sh’mot Rabbah 42,6)
According to the Zohar, the fear of the Moabites was due to their having noticed that wherever the Israelites encamped (40th year near the Jordan river) many gentiles would join them and convert to Judaism, so that the word העם, here does not refer to the mixed multitude that had joined the Israelites already at the Exodus. [I have not found this Zohar, Ed.] Balak or his people were afraid that if the Israelites were to encamp near them, many Moabites would convert to Judaism and join them. [The legislation that Moabites were not allowed to convert (Deuteronomy 23,4) had not yet been made public. Ed.] The next line describing the mental state of the Moabites as being one of dread of the Israelites, explains that whereas normally, Balak could not have cared less, here the fact that the Moabites were in such dread of the Israelites caused him to fear wholesale defection among his people to the Israelites as a real possibility. Balak was a great anti-Semite.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 22,4. “now this multitude will lick up all that is around us as does the ox licking up the grass of the field, etc.;”
Why did Balak draw a comparison between the encampment of the Israelites and the manner in which oxen denude the soil of its grass cover? Before explaining this it will help to explain Deuteronomy 11,15 where the Torah promises the Israelites that when they observe the Torah once they are on their own soil: ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך ואכלת ושבעת, “I will provide the grass of the field for your beasts and you will eat and be satisfied.” After the first sin G’d had condemned Adam to eating the grass of the field. (Genesis 3,18) We need to remember that whatever man eats is surrounded by commandments of the Torah being fulfilled in the process. Long before the farmer can eat the bread from the corn he grew this corn was subject to a variety of regulations of the Torah that have to be fulfilled first, in order for the farmer not to have been remiss. The farmer had to fulfill commandments relating both to ploughing, such as not having a donkey and an ox pulling the same plough; when seeding the farmer must take care not to seed the same field with a mixture of seeds of different grains, etc., before the tithes and related gifts to the poor, etc., of the actual harvest become applicable. (compare Deut. 22,10 and 9) By performing these various commandments prior to enjoying the result of his labours, the Jewish farmer becomes G’d’s partner in spiritually elevating the “sparks” (of holiness) contained in some of these foods, i.e. rehabilitating parts of G’d’s creation, such as some angels which had been spiritually downgraded through failing to perform their duties.
When man is reduced to eating the grass of the field, i.e. vegetation which grows without human input, he is unable through his eating, i.e. his partaking of G’d’s largesse, to accomplish his own or his environment’s rehabilitation.
This was the negative effect of the curse pronounced by G’d as part of Adam’s punishment, i.e. road to rehabilitation, decreed in Genesis 3,18. [This more than offsets the apparently beneficial effect of picking his food from the ground effortlessly and eating it as is. Ed.]
When the Torah describes the Israelite as “eating and being satiated” in Deuteronomy 11,15, it does not refer to the Israelite eating grass, but to his eating the ox after it has been duly slaughtered, examined for blemishes, its blood having been removed, etc., etc., i.e. numerous commandments having been performed, so that by eating it eventually the party doing so participates in the process of rehabilitating “fallen” sparks. Through this round about manner of man eating grass, i.e. grass which had first been eaten by the ox, he is enabled to participate in the rehabilitation of holy beings that had been demoted from their lofty origins.
In his writings, the Ari’zal has stated that the four basic levels of phenomena in this lower universe in which we mortals live, i.e. the inert, the vegetarian, the animalistic and the articulate, i.e. the human beings, there exist four levels in the universe known in a descending order as atzilut, b’riyah, yetzirah, and assiyah. In other words, the level of the animalistic, or חי, corresponds to the level of בריאה, creatures in the early stage of existence known as בריאה a stage in which this “creature” is distinct from other “existences” on a similar level.
The soul of repentant sinners is in a better position to help rehabilitate converts (who used to be pagans) than is the soul of a person who has always been a true believer in monotheism. The wicked Balak of which our portion speaks, was afraid of Israel because the Israelites had demonstrated their ability to help rehabilitate fallen sinners, i.e. “sparks,” during their journey through the desert, and he hated holiness, as has been alluded to in the line ויקץ מואב מפני בני ישראל, “that Moab was disgusted by the Children of Israel,” i.e. their moral/ethical values. The mere thought of having to be in the presence of holiness, literally caused Balak to puke.
[The root occurs in connection with Rivkah’s telling Yitzchok of being disgusted with her life if Yaakov would marry a daughter of Canaanite descent as had his twin brother Esau. (Genesis 27,45) Ed.]
According to Ari z’al what bothered Balak most, was the fact that during their wanderings the converts had been most successful in rehabilitating these “fallen” sinners, “sparks” and that is why the Torah describes this עם, i.e. the converts of the Jewish people as being רב, a major component of the people who rehabilitated sinners. He feared them more than the natural born Israelites, i.e. ויגר מואב מפני העם מאד, “Moab feared the newly converted Israelites very much.” The reason was that רב הוא, they were such a powerful influence in rehabilitating pagans. The Moabites were not nearly as afraid of the בני ישראל, the natural born Israelites being able to attract as many converts.
In Balak’s eyes it was as despicable to be an Israelite as it had been in the eyes of the new King over Egypt and his nation in Exodus1,8-12.
Moreover, he was aware that if his people would come into contact with other recent Jewish converts, the influence of those converts who had themselves come closer to G’d through joining the Jewish people, would be powerful enough for them to elevate Moabite converts to the highest spiritual level of life on earth, i.e. the level of בריאה. Referring back to the 4 spiritual levels of existence in the physical part of the universe, spiritual ascent, when it occurs, proceeds to the next higher level, the level of בריאה being the one corresponding to חי, the level of animalistic creatures. This is hinted at by Balak when he compared the people to the animals eating grass, i.e. כלחוך השור את ירק השדה.
Why did Balak draw a comparison between the encampment of the Israelites and the manner in which oxen denude the soil of its grass cover? Before explaining this it will help to explain Deuteronomy 11,15 where the Torah promises the Israelites that when they observe the Torah once they are on their own soil: ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך ואכלת ושבעת, “I will provide the grass of the field for your beasts and you will eat and be satisfied.” After the first sin G’d had condemned Adam to eating the grass of the field. (Genesis 3,18) We need to remember that whatever man eats is surrounded by commandments of the Torah being fulfilled in the process. Long before the farmer can eat the bread from the corn he grew this corn was subject to a variety of regulations of the Torah that have to be fulfilled first, in order for the farmer not to have been remiss. The farmer had to fulfill commandments relating both to ploughing, such as not having a donkey and an ox pulling the same plough; when seeding the farmer must take care not to seed the same field with a mixture of seeds of different grains, etc., before the tithes and related gifts to the poor, etc., of the actual harvest become applicable. (compare Deut. 22,10 and 9) By performing these various commandments prior to enjoying the result of his labours, the Jewish farmer becomes G’d’s partner in spiritually elevating the “sparks” (of holiness) contained in some of these foods, i.e. rehabilitating parts of G’d’s creation, such as some angels which had been spiritually downgraded through failing to perform their duties.
When man is reduced to eating the grass of the field, i.e. vegetation which grows without human input, he is unable through his eating, i.e. his partaking of G’d’s largesse, to accomplish his own or his environment’s rehabilitation.
This was the negative effect of the curse pronounced by G’d as part of Adam’s punishment, i.e. road to rehabilitation, decreed in Genesis 3,18. [This more than offsets the apparently beneficial effect of picking his food from the ground effortlessly and eating it as is. Ed.]
When the Torah describes the Israelite as “eating and being satiated” in Deuteronomy 11,15, it does not refer to the Israelite eating grass, but to his eating the ox after it has been duly slaughtered, examined for blemishes, its blood having been removed, etc., etc., i.e. numerous commandments having been performed, so that by eating it eventually the party doing so participates in the process of rehabilitating “fallen” sparks. Through this round about manner of man eating grass, i.e. grass which had first been eaten by the ox, he is enabled to participate in the rehabilitation of holy beings that had been demoted from their lofty origins.
In his writings, the Ari’zal has stated that the four basic levels of phenomena in this lower universe in which we mortals live, i.e. the inert, the vegetarian, the animalistic and the articulate, i.e. the human beings, there exist four levels in the universe known in a descending order as atzilut, b’riyah, yetzirah, and assiyah. In other words, the level of the animalistic, or חי, corresponds to the level of בריאה, creatures in the early stage of existence known as בריאה a stage in which this “creature” is distinct from other “existences” on a similar level.
The soul of repentant sinners is in a better position to help rehabilitate converts (who used to be pagans) than is the soul of a person who has always been a true believer in monotheism. The wicked Balak of which our portion speaks, was afraid of Israel because the Israelites had demonstrated their ability to help rehabilitate fallen sinners, i.e. “sparks,” during their journey through the desert, and he hated holiness, as has been alluded to in the line ויקץ מואב מפני בני ישראל, “that Moab was disgusted by the Children of Israel,” i.e. their moral/ethical values. The mere thought of having to be in the presence of holiness, literally caused Balak to puke.
[The root occurs in connection with Rivkah’s telling Yitzchok of being disgusted with her life if Yaakov would marry a daughter of Canaanite descent as had his twin brother Esau. (Genesis 27,45) Ed.]
According to Ari z’al what bothered Balak most, was the fact that during their wanderings the converts had been most successful in rehabilitating these “fallen” sinners, “sparks” and that is why the Torah describes this עם, i.e. the converts of the Jewish people as being רב, a major component of the people who rehabilitated sinners. He feared them more than the natural born Israelites, i.e. ויגר מואב מפני העם מאד, “Moab feared the newly converted Israelites very much.” The reason was that רב הוא, they were such a powerful influence in rehabilitating pagans. The Moabites were not nearly as afraid of the בני ישראל, the natural born Israelites being able to attract as many converts.
In Balak’s eyes it was as despicable to be an Israelite as it had been in the eyes of the new King over Egypt and his nation in Exodus1,8-12.
Moreover, he was aware that if his people would come into contact with other recent Jewish converts, the influence of those converts who had themselves come closer to G’d through joining the Jewish people, would be powerful enough for them to elevate Moabite converts to the highest spiritual level of life on earth, i.e. the level of בריאה. Referring back to the 4 spiritual levels of existence in the physical part of the universe, spiritual ascent, when it occurs, proceeds to the next higher level, the level of בריאה being the one corresponding to חי, the level of animalistic creatures. This is hinted at by Balak when he compared the people to the animals eating grass, i.e. כלחוך השור את ירק השדה.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Having explained all this, the opening line of our portion, i.e. Balak’s fear of the Israelites, which had baffled many in light of G’d having forbidden the Israelites to harass the Moabites, much less attack them, becomes more understandable.
It is true that Nachmanides had addressed this problem and concluded that Balak’s fear was that the Moabites, on account of their love or their being related to the founder of the Jewish people, would voluntarily allow themselves to be conquered, as a result of which the prohibition to attack and conquer their territory would have become null and void, and the Israelites would conquer that land, just as they had done with the land owned by Sichon and Og, annex it. Nonetheless, this is not a very plausible explanation as there were no nations nearby other than the Canaanites, all of whom Israel had been commanded to wipe out completely, so that the Moabites would not gain by becoming their captives. [Since the author had introduced an even less likely scenario than the example I mentioned, examples that reflect Balak’s supposed fear of the Israelites through devious means trying to elevate the Moabites spiritually, level by level, I have omitted it. Ed.]
When commenting on Deut. 34,10, ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה, “and there never arose another prophet of the stature of Moses in Israel,” our sages in Sifrey Vezot Habrachah, draw our attention to the significance of the word בישראל, “in Israel,” in that verse, and suggest that it means that within other nations there did arise at least one prophet of a stature equal or superior to that of Moses. The statement is mind-boggling, and they therefore add that any comparison of Moses and Bileam is limited to certain aspects of their respective prophetic knowledge and power.
It is true that Nachmanides had addressed this problem and concluded that Balak’s fear was that the Moabites, on account of their love or their being related to the founder of the Jewish people, would voluntarily allow themselves to be conquered, as a result of which the prohibition to attack and conquer their territory would have become null and void, and the Israelites would conquer that land, just as they had done with the land owned by Sichon and Og, annex it. Nonetheless, this is not a very plausible explanation as there were no nations nearby other than the Canaanites, all of whom Israel had been commanded to wipe out completely, so that the Moabites would not gain by becoming their captives. [Since the author had introduced an even less likely scenario than the example I mentioned, examples that reflect Balak’s supposed fear of the Israelites through devious means trying to elevate the Moabites spiritually, level by level, I have omitted it. Ed.]
When commenting on Deut. 34,10, ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה, “and there never arose another prophet of the stature of Moses in Israel,” our sages in Sifrey Vezot Habrachah, draw our attention to the significance of the word בישראל, “in Israel,” in that verse, and suggest that it means that within other nations there did arise at least one prophet of a stature equal or superior to that of Moses. The statement is mind-boggling, and they therefore add that any comparison of Moses and Bileam is limited to certain aspects of their respective prophetic knowledge and power.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 22,22. “G’d’s anger flared up because Bileam was going.” Nachmanides already poses the question of why G’d was angry at Bileam since He had given him permission to go when He had said: אם לקרוא לך באו האנשים קום לך אתם, “if the men have come to invite you, rise and go with them.” (Numbers 22,20)
The answer to this question has already been provided by Rashi (hundreds of years before Nachmanides posed it) when he commented on that verse: “if their invitation is intended for your personal benefit you may go.” Seeing that the purpose of the call for Bileam to curse the Jewish people was intended to benefit Balak and his people, G’d’s permission clearly did not include such a scenario, and He had reason to be furious. Nachmanides quotes Rashi in his commentary to show that he was aware of this answer.
Our author feels that Bileam’s going with Balak’s emissaries showed that he enjoyed being called upon to curse the Jewish people. This was in clear contradiction to his having been told that the Jewish people who were a blessed people could not be harmed by any curses. Seeing that this was so, he was now culpable not only for the curses he had intended to pronounce, but for the evil intention itself, something G’d usually does not punish a person for.
The answer to this question has already been provided by Rashi (hundreds of years before Nachmanides posed it) when he commented on that verse: “if their invitation is intended for your personal benefit you may go.” Seeing that the purpose of the call for Bileam to curse the Jewish people was intended to benefit Balak and his people, G’d’s permission clearly did not include such a scenario, and He had reason to be furious. Nachmanides quotes Rashi in his commentary to show that he was aware of this answer.
Our author feels that Bileam’s going with Balak’s emissaries showed that he enjoyed being called upon to curse the Jewish people. This was in clear contradiction to his having been told that the Jewish people who were a blessed people could not be harmed by any curses. Seeing that this was so, he was now culpable not only for the curses he had intended to pronounce, but for the evil intention itself, something G’d usually does not punish a person for.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 22,22. “G’d’s anger flared up because Bileam was going.” Nachmanides already poses the question of why G’d was angry at Bileam since He had given him permission to go when He had said: אם לקרוא לך באו האנשים קום לך אתם, “if the men have come to invite you, rise and go with them.” (Numbers 22,20)
The answer to this question has already been provided by Rashi (hundreds of years before Nachmanides posed it) when he commented on that verse: “if their invitation is intended for your personal benefit you may go.” Seeing that the purpose of the call for Bileam to curse the Jewish people was intended to benefit Balak and his people, G’d’s permission clearly did not include such a scenario, and He had reason to be furious. Nachmanides quotes Rashi in his commentary to show that he was aware of this answer.
Our author feels that Bileam’s going with Balak’s emissaries showed that he enjoyed being called upon to curse the Jewish people. This was in clear contradiction to his having been told that the Jewish people who were a blessed people could not be harmed by any curses. Seeing that this was so, he was now culpable not only for the curses he had intended to pronounce, but for the evil intention itself, something G’d usually does not punish a person for.
The answer to this question has already been provided by Rashi (hundreds of years before Nachmanides posed it) when he commented on that verse: “if their invitation is intended for your personal benefit you may go.” Seeing that the purpose of the call for Bileam to curse the Jewish people was intended to benefit Balak and his people, G’d’s permission clearly did not include such a scenario, and He had reason to be furious. Nachmanides quotes Rashi in his commentary to show that he was aware of this answer.
Our author feels that Bileam’s going with Balak’s emissaries showed that he enjoyed being called upon to curse the Jewish people. This was in clear contradiction to his having been told that the Jewish people who were a blessed people could not be harmed by any curses. Seeing that this was so, he was now culpable not only for the curses he had intended to pronounce, but for the evil intention itself, something G’d usually does not punish a person for.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 22,32 “the angel of the Lord said to Bileam: ‘why did you strike your she-ass three times?’” We have to examine why it bothered the angel that Bileam struck his ass? As long as he had not been aware that the angel had blocked the path, why does an owner of a domestic animal not have the right to discipline it when it does not obey its master’s instructions?
We must assume that when G’d instructed the angel to act as hindrance to Bileam, He had told the angel under what conditions Bileam had been allowed to accompany Balak’s emissaries, i.e. that he was restricted to do and speak only words that G’d would put in his mouth. (verse 20) The angel’s task was to check if Bileam conformed with the conditions G’d had stipulated for his journey. When someone sets out on an errant in order to perform a command of G’d and he encounters unforeseen difficulties, he must examine the reason for this. If he cannot find a reasonable explanation for the obstacles, he should conclude that G’d may no longer wish for him to pursue that errant and return home. When the angel became aware that in spite of three such covert warnings Bileam had chosen to press on with his mission, he recognized that this was due to Bileam’s evil intentions, and he became angry, challenging him and telling him that he had actually already forfeited his life by his conduct. Bileam’s stature as a prophet, and his boast of being familiar with G’d’s ways, (Numbers 24,4) should certainly have alerted him that the ass’s strange behaviour was a warning from G’d for his own benefit, to desist from this enterprise. The angel therefore was completely justified in asking Bileam why he had struck his ass three times.
We must assume that when G’d instructed the angel to act as hindrance to Bileam, He had told the angel under what conditions Bileam had been allowed to accompany Balak’s emissaries, i.e. that he was restricted to do and speak only words that G’d would put in his mouth. (verse 20) The angel’s task was to check if Bileam conformed with the conditions G’d had stipulated for his journey. When someone sets out on an errant in order to perform a command of G’d and he encounters unforeseen difficulties, he must examine the reason for this. If he cannot find a reasonable explanation for the obstacles, he should conclude that G’d may no longer wish for him to pursue that errant and return home. When the angel became aware that in spite of three such covert warnings Bileam had chosen to press on with his mission, he recognized that this was due to Bileam’s evil intentions, and he became angry, challenging him and telling him that he had actually already forfeited his life by his conduct. Bileam’s stature as a prophet, and his boast of being familiar with G’d’s ways, (Numbers 24,4) should certainly have alerted him that the ass’s strange behaviour was a warning from G’d for his own benefit, to desist from this enterprise. The angel therefore was completely justified in asking Bileam why he had struck his ass three times.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
22,36. “Balak heard that Bileam had come; he went out to meet him all the way to the city of Moab which is situated at the border with the river Arnon at its farthest point.”
A look at Rashi explains why Balak chose to meet Bileam precisely at the location mentioned. The reason why this choice of location was specifically auspicious in Balak’s eyes will be understood in conjunction with Balak’s having praised Bileam when he reminded him that when Bileam blessed someone the party would prove to be blessed. (Numbers 22,6) Balak knew firsthand that Moab’s loss of a great part of its territory had been due to Bileam having cursed it prior to Sichon’s attack on that country. Balak wanted to remind Bileam that if it had not been for his cursing Moab, the border during his time would have been much further to the east. (Rashi, 22,6 based on Tanchuma) Balak wanted to show Bileam that he had faith in the latter’s ability to curse. This might encourage him to also curse Israel successfully. Bileam and Balak were of one mind concerning their viewing Israel as an imminent threat, but G’d confounded their plans tuning them into blessings instead.
A look at Rashi explains why Balak chose to meet Bileam precisely at the location mentioned. The reason why this choice of location was specifically auspicious in Balak’s eyes will be understood in conjunction with Balak’s having praised Bileam when he reminded him that when Bileam blessed someone the party would prove to be blessed. (Numbers 22,6) Balak knew firsthand that Moab’s loss of a great part of its territory had been due to Bileam having cursed it prior to Sichon’s attack on that country. Balak wanted to remind Bileam that if it had not been for his cursing Moab, the border during his time would have been much further to the east. (Rashi, 22,6 based on Tanchuma) Balak wanted to show Bileam that he had faith in the latter’s ability to curse. This might encourage him to also curse Israel successfully. Bileam and Balak were of one mind concerning their viewing Israel as an imminent threat, but G’d confounded their plans tuning them into blessings instead.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
22,36. “Balak heard that Bileam had come; he went out to meet him all the way to the city of Moab which is situated at the border with the river Arnon at its farthest point.”
A look at Rashi explains why Balak chose to meet Bileam precisely at the location mentioned. The reason why this choice of location was specifically auspicious in Balak’s eyes will be understood in conjunction with Balak’s having praised Bileam when he reminded him that when Bileam blessed someone the party would prove to be blessed. (Numbers 22,6) Balak knew firsthand that Moab’s loss of a great part of its territory had been due to Bileam having cursed it prior to Sichon’s attack on that country. Balak wanted to remind Bileam that if it had not been for his cursing Moab, the border during his time would have been much further to the east. (Rashi, 22,6 based on Tanchuma) Balak wanted to show Bileam that he had faith in the latter’s ability to curse. This might encourage him to also curse Israel successfully. Bileam and Balak were of one mind concerning their viewing Israel as an imminent threat, but G’d confounded their plans tuning them into blessings instead.
A look at Rashi explains why Balak chose to meet Bileam precisely at the location mentioned. The reason why this choice of location was specifically auspicious in Balak’s eyes will be understood in conjunction with Balak’s having praised Bileam when he reminded him that when Bileam blessed someone the party would prove to be blessed. (Numbers 22,6) Balak knew firsthand that Moab’s loss of a great part of its territory had been due to Bileam having cursed it prior to Sichon’s attack on that country. Balak wanted to remind Bileam that if it had not been for his cursing Moab, the border during his time would have been much further to the east. (Rashi, 22,6 based on Tanchuma) Balak wanted to show Bileam that he had faith in the latter’s ability to curse. This might encourage him to also curse Israel successfully. Bileam and Balak were of one mind concerning their viewing Israel as an imminent threat, but G’d confounded their plans tuning them into blessings instead.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 23,20. “here I have been instructed to bless, since He has blessed I cannot reverse it.” Bileam clearly explains to Balak his inability to alter G’d’s decrees, as he told him before when he said that the difference between man and G’d is that G’d does not lie. On the other hand, although G’d does not reverse Himself, the righteous are able by their prayers to bring about a reversal of decrees harmful for the Jewish people. [In other words, man can sometimes accomplish what G’d is prevented from doing by His own initiative. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 23,21. “no harm is in sight for Yaakov no woe for Israel. The Lord their G’d is with them.” The true meaning of these words is hard to understand, [as the Israelites certainly had not been faultless throughout these 40 years. Ed.]
Bileam describes G’d’s attitude when Israel’s merits come to His attention and when, G’d forbid, their sins call for His attention. He says that Israel’s merits will immediately command G’d’s attention and He will respond to them without delay, whereas He does not wish to take a look at their sins immediately. The former is spelled out when Bileam adds: ה' אלוקיו עמו, Hashem, its G’d is with it.” The expression following, i.e. ותרועת מלך בו, “and their king’s acclaim is in their midst,” is a reference to the divisive nature of the teruah sound of the shofar. A king can be acclaimed by unbroken sounds of the shofar or by broken sounds. G’d reacts selectively to reports He receives about the conduct of His people.
The author proceeds to use the opportunity to explain the deeper meaning of the respective sounds תקיעה and תרועה which emanate from the ram’s horn, the shofar. The former sound is unbroken, symbolizing unity, continuity, whereas the latter signifies dissonance, friction, disharmony.
At the time when the Holy Temple stood and service was performed in it, this was an era distinguished by the תקיעה, the very letters in that word when examined meaning תקע י-ה meaning “G’d fastens, clasps, unites.” During periods of exile, however, this is symbolised by the broken sound תרועה; during the period when the Temple stood daily burnt offerings, known as תמידים were offered by the priests on behalf of the entire people (who had contributed on an equal basis to the cost of these animals) both mornings and evenings. All of this symbolised the inner adhesion of the various tribes to one another. The תרועה sound by its very nature calls attention to the fact that the Jews are dispersed among gentiles, lacking this inner cohesion. As a result of their sins and the subsequent exile, G’d delays looking at the sins of the Jewish people while they are in exile, as the conditions for them to observe the Torah in full measure do not exist and it is harder for them to accumulate collective merits. [Some of the words are mine, but the author whose fame rests on his being an advocate vis a vis G’d of his people in exile, is making the point I described. Ed.]. He sees in the sequence in which we blow the shofar a summary of our history which began in glory, i.e. תקיעה, was interrupted by decline, exile, i.e. תרועה, but will most certainly end again with the תקיעה to signal our redemption soon in our days.
In support of his theory, the author quotes the statement of our sages that G’d’s presence cannot rest on us permanently unless at least 600000 male adults are assembled. (Midrash Hagadol Vayishlach 32,3) The תקיעה symbolizes that thought. This explains that whenever the Jewish people made camp while in the desert, a תקיעה as blown as a reminder that the Shechinah, G’d’s presence, was at hand. On the other hand, breaking camp was signaled by the blowing of a תרועה, the broken sound, as breaking camp was a sign that the people had displeased G’d, and that this was why they had to pack up once more. According to the Ari z’al, the various journeys were inspired by the need to accumulate merits by picking up “fallen” sparks along the route and to become the instrument of restoring same to the celestial position before they had “fallen” out of grace. The fact that the Israelites offset their sins by these merits of picking up “fallen sparks,” was responsible for G’d not immediately turning His attention to the misdemeanours of the Israelites that had brought about their need to move on.
The sound of the תרועה, reminder that G’d had broken, interrupted His preoccupation with the Israelites’ sins, was also a reminder of the need to acquire merits by elevating themselves spiritually to offset the effect of their sins.
[Various commentators in dealing with the inverted way in which Moses reports the process of making camp and breaking camp in Numbers 33,1-33,2 refer to each move being testimony to the people having angered G’d. Ed.]
Bileam describes G’d’s attitude when Israel’s merits come to His attention and when, G’d forbid, their sins call for His attention. He says that Israel’s merits will immediately command G’d’s attention and He will respond to them without delay, whereas He does not wish to take a look at their sins immediately. The former is spelled out when Bileam adds: ה' אלוקיו עמו, Hashem, its G’d is with it.” The expression following, i.e. ותרועת מלך בו, “and their king’s acclaim is in their midst,” is a reference to the divisive nature of the teruah sound of the shofar. A king can be acclaimed by unbroken sounds of the shofar or by broken sounds. G’d reacts selectively to reports He receives about the conduct of His people.
The author proceeds to use the opportunity to explain the deeper meaning of the respective sounds תקיעה and תרועה which emanate from the ram’s horn, the shofar. The former sound is unbroken, symbolizing unity, continuity, whereas the latter signifies dissonance, friction, disharmony.
At the time when the Holy Temple stood and service was performed in it, this was an era distinguished by the תקיעה, the very letters in that word when examined meaning תקע י-ה meaning “G’d fastens, clasps, unites.” During periods of exile, however, this is symbolised by the broken sound תרועה; during the period when the Temple stood daily burnt offerings, known as תמידים were offered by the priests on behalf of the entire people (who had contributed on an equal basis to the cost of these animals) both mornings and evenings. All of this symbolised the inner adhesion of the various tribes to one another. The תרועה sound by its very nature calls attention to the fact that the Jews are dispersed among gentiles, lacking this inner cohesion. As a result of their sins and the subsequent exile, G’d delays looking at the sins of the Jewish people while they are in exile, as the conditions for them to observe the Torah in full measure do not exist and it is harder for them to accumulate collective merits. [Some of the words are mine, but the author whose fame rests on his being an advocate vis a vis G’d of his people in exile, is making the point I described. Ed.]. He sees in the sequence in which we blow the shofar a summary of our history which began in glory, i.e. תקיעה, was interrupted by decline, exile, i.e. תרועה, but will most certainly end again with the תקיעה to signal our redemption soon in our days.
In support of his theory, the author quotes the statement of our sages that G’d’s presence cannot rest on us permanently unless at least 600000 male adults are assembled. (Midrash Hagadol Vayishlach 32,3) The תקיעה symbolizes that thought. This explains that whenever the Jewish people made camp while in the desert, a תקיעה as blown as a reminder that the Shechinah, G’d’s presence, was at hand. On the other hand, breaking camp was signaled by the blowing of a תרועה, the broken sound, as breaking camp was a sign that the people had displeased G’d, and that this was why they had to pack up once more. According to the Ari z’al, the various journeys were inspired by the need to accumulate merits by picking up “fallen” sparks along the route and to become the instrument of restoring same to the celestial position before they had “fallen” out of grace. The fact that the Israelites offset their sins by these merits of picking up “fallen sparks,” was responsible for G’d not immediately turning His attention to the misdemeanours of the Israelites that had brought about their need to move on.
The sound of the תרועה, reminder that G’d had broken, interrupted His preoccupation with the Israelites’ sins, was also a reminder of the need to acquire merits by elevating themselves spiritually to offset the effect of their sins.
[Various commentators in dealing with the inverted way in which Moses reports the process of making camp and breaking camp in Numbers 33,1-33,2 refer to each move being testimony to the people having angered G’d. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 23,22. “the G’d Who has brought them out of Egypt.” Rashi draws our attention to the fact that Bileam had to retract a statement he had made when speaking to G’d in answer to His question who the men were that had come to visit him. (Numbers 22,9) At that time he had attributed Israel’s exodus from Egypt as being due to their own efforts, i.e. העם היוצא ממצרים. He has now been forced to admit publicly that it was G’d Who had brought the Jewish people out of Egypt.
We have a rule that “awakening, initiative,” can start either in the celestial regions or in the terrestrial regions. Every person can be the cause of G’d relating to him with the attribute of Mercy by simply improving the number of credits he accumulates through his good deeds. Based on this he may appeal to G’d to use His attribute of mercy in dealing with him. Invoking the merits of the patriarchs, however, in other words, mobilizing forces of mercy whose sources are in the “higher world,” is something only members of the Jewish people are able to do.
[Very doubtful, as King Chiskiyah, invoking his merits when asking G’d to let him live longer, was told by G’d that he was granted this extension only due to the merits of his ancestor David. Compare Kings II 20,1-5. Ed.]
This is what the wicked Bileam referred to when he said to G’d הנה העם יצא ממצרים, “here we have this nation that departed from Egypt, etc.” When crediting the Exodus to the Jewish people themselves, Bileam meant that this people by dint of their own merits aroused sufficient forces of the attribute of Mercy to bring about their redemption.
In order to show how wrong Bileam was, our sages in Avot chapter 5, list 10 “trials that the Jewish people had subjected G’d to, i.e. 10 collective sins, instead of ten collective merits which had resulted in their redemption. G’d indicated to Bileam that the attribute of Mercy which after being “awakened” by our patriarchs reminded G’d of His promise to them, that the Exodus was put in motion. It was the accumulated merits of the patriarchs which were the major factor in the redemption of the Jewish people from their cruel fate in Egypt. This is a factor that may come to the aid of the Jewish people, but never to the aid of the gentiles.
We have a rule that “awakening, initiative,” can start either in the celestial regions or in the terrestrial regions. Every person can be the cause of G’d relating to him with the attribute of Mercy by simply improving the number of credits he accumulates through his good deeds. Based on this he may appeal to G’d to use His attribute of mercy in dealing with him. Invoking the merits of the patriarchs, however, in other words, mobilizing forces of mercy whose sources are in the “higher world,” is something only members of the Jewish people are able to do.
[Very doubtful, as King Chiskiyah, invoking his merits when asking G’d to let him live longer, was told by G’d that he was granted this extension only due to the merits of his ancestor David. Compare Kings II 20,1-5. Ed.]
This is what the wicked Bileam referred to when he said to G’d הנה העם יצא ממצרים, “here we have this nation that departed from Egypt, etc.” When crediting the Exodus to the Jewish people themselves, Bileam meant that this people by dint of their own merits aroused sufficient forces of the attribute of Mercy to bring about their redemption.
In order to show how wrong Bileam was, our sages in Avot chapter 5, list 10 “trials that the Jewish people had subjected G’d to, i.e. 10 collective sins, instead of ten collective merits which had resulted in their redemption. G’d indicated to Bileam that the attribute of Mercy which after being “awakened” by our patriarchs reminded G’d of His promise to them, that the Exodus was put in motion. It was the accumulated merits of the patriarchs which were the major factor in the redemption of the Jewish people from their cruel fate in Egypt. This is a factor that may come to the aid of the Jewish people, but never to the aid of the gentiles.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy