Commentaire sur Les Nombres 24:3

בנו בער — The grammatical form בנו is exactly like that in (Psalms 114:8) “To a spring of (מעינו) water” (see Rashi on Numbers 23:18). But a Midrashic statement is: Both of them (Balak and Balaam) were superior to their fathers, for it states (Numbers 23:18): “Balak — his son was Zippor”, i.e. that his father (Zippor) was his son (his inferior) in respect to royalty, and Balaam was greater than his father in prophecy (because it states here, בלעם בנו בעור i.e. Balaam — his son was Beor): he was, so to speak, a Maneh, son of a Half-Maneh (Sanhedrin 105a, Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 13, cf. Taanit 28b).

SHETHUM HA’AYIN.’ The commentators have not found the root of this word [shethum] anywhere else in Scripture. Onkelos translated it: “who sees well,” as [if to say] “open-eyed,” and in the language of the Sages we find:²⁰⁶Abodah Zarah 69a. “sufficient time sheyishtom and to close it up” — meaning to say: [enough time to open a hole in the barrel of wine] — and to stop it up again. Perhaps the word [shethum] is a composite one [consisting of the two words shethui mah — “whatever is put” before the eye], from the root ‘shithi’ (My setting) these My signs,²⁰⁷Exodus 10:1. Thus, unlike Rashi and R’dak who explain the word shethum on the basis of the root shatham found in the Mishnah, Ramban explains it on the basis of Biblical language. [and here it means] that Balaam is a person [of whom one can use the phrase] “whatever is put” [before him] — because he understands everything that he puts his eye upon.

וישא משלו, "He began his parable, etc." Why were these two words necessary? We also need to know why he had to say: "says Bileam, etc." Who did not know that Bileam was speaking? Furthermore, why did Bileam have to tel us once more who his father was? Besides, why did he have to give details about identifying marks on his body? What did he mean when he said: "who hears the words of G'd?" If he meant to boast that he was privy to communications from G'd, why had he waited so long to do this?

שתום העין, someone whose yes were open, someone granted divine visions, as we have been told in Avodah Zarah 69. [ what we have been told there is that the expression שתום refers to the brief moment which elapses between opening one’s eye and blinking before closing it again. Ed.]

According to Midrash Aggadah: Both of them were greater… [This refers to] Bil’am and Balak. Previously concerning Balak it is written (23:18), בלק בנו…צפור [lit. "Balak… his son was Tzipor"], which also meant that he was the son, and that Tzipor his father was similar to Balak. However, Rashi did not explain [that he was greater than his father] above in the comment on בנו צפור. The answer is that above one might have said that the vav was superfluous, as with the vav in למעינו מים ["into a spring of water"]. However here he expounds it, given that the Torah writes בנו בעור [having written בנו for] a second time, implying for it to be expounded. Subsequently, one also learns from here the meaning of בנו צפור.

VV. 3 u. 4. וישא וגו׳. Dieser רוח אלקי scheint ihm selber ein neuer gewesen zu sein, darum ist er, wie keiner der Propheten Israels, zu allererst von sich voll und kann über die Beschreibung seines neuen Zustandes und seiner gehobenen geistigen Persönlichkeit nicht zu seinem eigentlichen Worte kommen. — נאם (siehe Bereschit 5, 30-31). — בנו בעור (vergl. Kap. 23, 18). Sanhedrin 105a wird der Ausdruck im entgegen — gesetzten Verhältnis, als wir geglaubt, gefasst: אביו בנו הוא לו בנביאות, Bileam, dessen Vater Beor sich als Sohn zu ihm verhält, der als Prophet den Vater überflügelt.

When Bil’am saw that it was favorable. He saw that they were favorable to Hashem. He did not approach, as at each time, towards sorcery. In other words, he did not search after their transgressions that were committed as a result of the first נחש (serpent). But he set his face toward the wilderness. This is according to the Midrash (Shemos Rabbah 2:4): Who is this rising up (עולה) from the wilderness? (Shir HaShirim) — all the good qualities (מעלתן) of Yisroel were [acquired] from the wilderness. The intention of this Midrash is that, due to the trait of humility that Yisroel possessed — that they made themselves as the wilderness upon which everyone tramples — Yisroel merited all the good qualities. As soon as Bil'am turned his eyes towards all the good qualities that Yisroel merited from the wilderness, intending to infect them with an evil eye, his eye was immediately blinded. Therefore, Bil'am refers to himself as, the man of the open-socketed eye, (v.3) specifically on this occasion.

שתום העין WITH THE PENETRATING EYE — his eye was bored out and had been extracted and its eye socket could be seen to be open. The word שתום used in the sense of “boring a hole” is a Mishnaic usage: sufficient time that we can bore a hole (ישתום) in the cask and stop it up, and it (the clay of which the stopper is made) can dry (Avodah Zarah 69a). And our Rabbis said, Because he had said, (Numbers 23:10) ומספר את רבע ישראל, meaning that the Holy One, blessed be He, occupies Himself with counting the issue of the marital life of the Israelites, awaiting the time when a righteous man will be born, he therefore said to himself, “Does He who is holy and whose ministers are holy direct his mind to matters such as these?” On this account Balaam’s eye was blinded (Niddah 31a). But some explain that שתום העין means “open-eyed”, just as Onkelos translated (“who can see well”). And since it says, שתום העין "with an open eye” and it does not say, “with open eyes”, we may learn that in one of his eyes he was blind (Sanhedrin 105a).

He was a coin, son of half a coin. As if to say he was a litra [measure], son of half a litra [measure].

We must remember that up until this moment Bileam had uttered only words which the angel had put in his mouth; all the words he had spoken were the complete opposite of what he wished to say. Now he was anxious that G'd should agree with what he would utter, i.e. that the words he would say would be considered as if he had spoken them willingly. He was quite prepared that G'd would turn any curse he would try into a blessing. However, he wanted to make sure that if he were to pronounce a blessing G'd would not invoke His power to bless but would accept Bileam's words of blessing as they were. This was especially so if you accept our second interpretation on the words "he turned his face to the desert," where we explained that he pretended to have become a בעל תשובה, a penitent, and to thereby become fit to bless the Jewish people. The verse then may be understood as follows: וישא משלו, Bileam referred to a parable which originated with him personally, not with the angel. Once we accept this approach we can easily understand the quote from Sanhedrin 105 that his blessings were couched in such a language that they were actually curses as in כנחלים נטיו. These נחלים, rivulets which flow through the valley, are brooks which dry up in the summer so that they do not irrigate orchards adjoining them. The Holy Spirit corrected Bileam, adding the word נטיו, i.e. that not as Bileam meant that they would run dry, but they would continue to flow in every season. The Torah continued כאהלים נטע השם, "as aloes planted by the Lord;" actually, Bileam had not wanted to say the additional words "which G'd has planted;" he had only wanted to single out a category of plant which has a short life; G'd altered the meaning by adding the words: "planted by the Lord," i.e. enduring. In this fashion G'd added whatever was necessary to Bileam's "blessings" in order to make real blessings out of them, not hidden curses. If Bileam's words had been spoken by the angel just as previously, why would the angel phrase them so that they could be perceived as curses in disguise? It is dear therefore, that what we have here are words which Bileam spoke of his own accord although G'd added something in each case in order to blunt his evil intention.

שתם .שתם kommt nur noch in der Mischna (Aboda Sara 109 a) als Gegenteil von סתם vor: כדי שישתום ויסתום ויגוב, wo es das Öffnen eines Spundes bedeutet. שתם העין: er fühlt sich jetzt erst geöffneten Auges. מחזה שדי: das, was der über der Weltordnung Stehende, Maß und Ziel, Gesetz und Ordnung Setzende von dieser Seiner Weltordnung den Sterblichen sehen lassen will (siehe Bereschit 17, 1). —נפל: der über ihn gekommene רוח אלקים hat ihn überwältigt, aber er ist dabei גלוי עינים, sein Geist ist hell und wach.

Enough for it to have been opened sealed and dried. [The Mishnah] is speaking about yayin nesech [wine handled by gentiles]. It teaches that if a barrel of wine was in the house of a gentile and remained there [for a length of time that the gentile] could make an opening in the barrel, remove some wine and then seal and wipe it, meaning that the seal would dry, as Targum Onkelos translates חרבו המים ["the water dried" (Bereishis 8:13)] as נגובו [“dried”], then it would be considered yayin nesech. From there we see that שתום is an expression of open.

This then is why the Torah wrote three distinct statements to make it unmistakably clear that here we speak about Bileam initiating these blessings. 1) נאם בלעם (3 ,ויאמר (2 ,וישא משלו. It should be recorded forever who it was who thought up these words and uttered them. The reason that Bileam (or the Torah) recorded three separate words identifying the speaker may be analogous to what we learned in the Mishnah Peah 7,1. We are taught there that in order to be certain that a farmer is guilty of violating the law against harvesting fruit from trees he had previously forgotten (שכחה), none of the following three conditions must obtain: 1) The olive tree in question must not be known by a particular name. 2) its produce must not be of a particularly well known quality. 3) The tree in question must not be known because of its specific location. The Mishnah rules that if any of these three conditions applies to the tree in question, it is not conceivable that the owner "forgot" to harvest it when he harvested the rest of the orchard, and therefore he is allowed to pluck the olives from this tree even when this appears to be an afterthought. In our verse, the words "the son of Be-Or" identify the speaker just as the Mishnah identifies the tree. The reason the Torah did not write the usual בן, "son of," but בנו, "his son," is to remind us that Bileam's father was inferior to Bileam the son in achievements. It is also possible that all the Torah wanted to tell us was that Be-Or had only one son, Bileam. If you were to say that he did have additional sons, then the Torah meant that the only son of his who counted was Bileam. As to the specific quality of the fruit of the tree in question mentioned in our Mishnah in Peah the Torah writes הגבר שתום העין, the man whose piercing look would cause harm to anyone he set his eyes on. This is why he had to make it a habit to close his eye i.e. סותם עינו, to avoid killing people indiscriminately. Alternatively, his left eye was distinguished in some way. According to the commentators who understand the expression שתום העין to mean that his eye was opened, it means that when he used to open this eye he would inflict harm on the objects he looked at. Concerning the third identifying mark mentioned in the Mishnah in Peah, the specific location of the tree in question, the Torah wrote שומע אמרי א־ל, "the one who hears the words of G'd," i.e. that he stood in a place where the power of prophecy descended upon him.

Some interpret שתום as “of the open eye.” As if to say that he had better vision than other people.

We now have to explain why Bileam said three times of himself that he was speaking, i.e. נאם. This may have to do with three distinct hidden powers Bileam possessed. 1) He was endowed with special powers at birth, something he inherited in his genes. 2) He acquired special powers due to certain deeds of his, just like any person who acquires psychic or spiritual powers due to a certain lifestyle. 3) G'd endowed him with certain powers in order to defuse the claim of the Gentile nations that if only they would have had a prophet such as Moses, they too would have distinguished themselves spiritually just as the Jewish people had done (compare Bamidbar Rabbah 20,1). Bileam intended to bring to bear all of his three powers in his speeches. Concerning the powers he had inherited by way of his genes he said נאם בלעם בנו בעור; he made a point of describing himself as the son of Be-Or instead of describing himself as "a son of Be-Or" so as to avoid the impression that his father had possessed these powers in even greater measure than he himself. He was only interested in underlining his own part in these powers. Concerning the psychic spiritual powers he had acquired on his own, he said נאם הגבר, "says the man." The word גבר is also an allusion to גבורה, heroism or bravery. When he added the words שתום העין, he may have referred to something in the Zohar volume 3 page 208 that he made a pilgrimage to Azza and Azael (names of deities, fallen angels) where he acquired spiritually negative powers. There he gained insights into many mystical matters at the same time finding the acquisition of these powers very exhausting, as described there by the Zohar. Finally, concerning the powers G'd endowed him with, Bileam described himself as שומע אמרי א־ל. He repeated the importance of this element among his powers by adding the word ומחזה, calling attention to the fact that he enjoyed visions granted to him by G'd. He referred to two levels of prophetic powers 1) He could hear G'd's words; 2) He could see visions when addressed by G'd. When he added the words נפל וגלוי עינים, "falling down yet with eyes open," he described his reaction when receiving communications from G'd. If the communication was visual, he would fall down at the time. If it was merely aural, he was able to absorb such messages with eyes open, i.e. without having to go into a trance.

But did not say, “Of the open eyes.” Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely we have a tradition that Bil’am was blind, so how could he explain that Bil’am was of open eye, which implies that he had good vision? Therefore he explains that it does not say, “Of open eyes…”