Commentaire de citation sur Le Deutéronome 23:6

AND ISRAEL ABODE IN SHITTIM, AND THE PEOPLE BEGAN TO COMMIT HARLOTRY WITH THE DAUGHTERS OF MOAB — “because of the advice of Balaam, as is related in [the Chapter of] Cheilek.”²²⁸Literally: “Portion” — “All Israel have ‘a portion’ in the World to Come.” Sanhedrin 106a. The story of the Israelites committing immorality with the Moabite women is related in the following chapter of the Torah, and tradition has it that this plan was suggested by Balaam in his parting words to Balak. This, as Rashi explains, is the reason why he used the phrase “I will ‘counsel thee’ what this people shall do”, meaning: “I will counsel thee how to lead the people astray, and I will tell you what this people shall do …” Ramban explains the phrase “I will counsel thee” differently. This is Rashi’s language. And indeed this [seduction to] immorality was not instigated as a plan of the [Moabite] women, but was done upon the advice of their men and their leaders. [The idea] came to them from the elders of Midian, as it says of the Midianites, for they harass you, by their wiles wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor,³⁰⁵Further, 25:18. for they beguiled them by means of immorality in order to draw them astray [to worship] Baal-peor. Therefore it is [indeed] possible that Balaam was behind this counsel, since he was considered by them [the Moabites] great in counsel,³⁰⁶Jeremiah 32:19. and his intention was to bring evil upon Israel, and therefore he did everything in his power to this end, as it is said, And the Eternal thy G-d would not hearken unto Balaam,³⁰⁷Deuteronomy 23:6. and therefore they slew him with the sword.³⁰⁸Further, 31:8.
But according to the simple meaning of Scripture, it is not alluding here to the counsel of Balaam, but only [alludes to it] when it says afterwards, Behold, these [women] caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam etc.,³⁰⁹Ibid., Verse 16. just as it does not mention here the counsel of the elders of Midian, and only [mentions it] when it says, for they harass you.³⁰⁵Further, 25:18. Thus [it is only] after the event [had happened], at the time of [describing] their punishment, that He mentions what was the source of the evil that befell them. He is [thus] saying that what happened [to them] as a result of the desire for sexual pleasure which exists naturally in men and women from [the time of] their youth, was only [the result] of an evil plan [whose purpose was] to lead them astray [into worshipping Baal-peor]; therefore [the instigators of this plan] deserve a severe punishment. The interpretation of the verse, Come and I will counsel thee what this people shall do to thy people in the end of days³¹⁰Above, 24:14. is thus indeed as I have explained [there].
It is also possible according to the simple meaning of Scripture that Balak at first wanted to curse them [the Israelites] and to wage war against them, and he did not want to give them permission to enter his borders at all. But when Balaam told him³¹¹See Ramban above, Verse 17. that he would not prevail over them, and informed him that they would only destroy his land and his people in the end of days,³¹⁰Above, 24:14. then he [Balak] brought forth bread and wine³¹²Genesis 14:18. See Ramban to Deuteronomy 23:5, that the Moabites did meet the Israelites with bread and water when they were near their country; only the Ammonites failed to do so. — Ramban introduces here the element of “wine,” as a clear reference to what the Rabbis in the Sifre here have stated: “[The Israelite] entered; a gourd of wine lay near her. Said she to him, ‘Wouldst thou like to drink?’ etc.” in the plains of Moab [i.e., in Shittim], and enticed them [with the daughters of Moab] as if he were their friend. This is [the meaning of the phrase] ‘bidvar’ (through ‘the word’ of) Balaam,³⁰⁹Ibid., Verse 16. for it was because of his words [i.e., his prophecy that the Israelites would not conquer their land now, that the Moabites] did so [i.e., that they did not fight them, but tried to seduce them and lead them astray through their women]. But because it was Balaam’s desire to curse them, and he allowed Balak to hire him [and would indeed have cursed them] were it not for the righteous acts of the Eternal³¹³See Micah 6:5. Who turned the curse into a blessing,³⁰⁷Deuteronomy 23:6. therefore they slew him with the sword,³⁰⁸Further, 31:8. for both the hirer [Moab] and the hired one [Balaam] were punished, just as He said, and because he hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor etc.³¹⁴Deuteronomy 23:5.

'ומה אזעום לא זעם ה, “how could I successfully curse someone whom Hashem has not cursed?” Bileam, who specialised in timing G–d’s “moods,” knew that at that time G–d had not had any reason to be angry at His people. If you were to quote the prophet Micah in Micah 6,5, who refers to Bileam having detected that G–d did display anger at Israel at the time, (as interpreted by the Talmud, tractate B’rachot 7,) that anger lasted but a moment and did not enable Bileam to pinpoint accurately. At least Bileam did not have time enough to curse all the Israelites before the curse was turned into a blessing as we know from what Moses said in Deuteronomy 23,6 where he describes G–d as interfering in Bileam’s attempt immediately He had become aware of it. If Bileam had cursed them with the single word: כלם, “make an end of them” he would have had time enough. According to the Talmud the words ותרועת מלך בו, “and the King’s shofar blast is active on their behalf,” (in verse 21 of our chapter) hints at how G–d annuls Bileam’s attempt at cursing the Jewish people. The word מלך, “King,” consisting of the same letters as the word כלם,” destroy them,” shows how G–d interfered with Bileam’s curse. Our author raises an objection to this methodology of turning curses into blessings by quoting the Talmud on the same folio where it reports Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi being harassed by a member of the Tz’doki sect, raising what he considered contradictory verses in the Torah. One day the Rabbi took a cockerel, positioned him at the bottom of his bed, and looked at that bird intently, intending that as soon as the time when G–d is briefly angry would arrive, he would curse that Tz’doki. By the time that hour arrived, the Rabbi had fallen asleep, (and missed his chance). When he awoke, he realised that he had been saved from committing a sin by having fallen asleep at the crucial time, and he interpreted Proverbs 17,26: גם ענוש לצדיק לא טוב, “it is also not good to punish the righteous,” to mean that one must not deliberately become the instrument by which G–d punishes the wicked. Our author questions how Rabbi Joshua ben Levi could have succeeded to successfully curse that Tz’doki at the precise moment of G–d’s anger, as it would have taken too long, according to what we just learned? He therefore comes to the conclusion that what is critical is only if the beginning of one’s curse coincides with the precise moment at which G–d is angry. He supports his theory by pointing to the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin folio 105 where Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as having said that the very wording of Bileam’s blessings hinted already at the fact that they had been meant to be curses which G–d had reversed. When he had meant to say that he wished that the Israelites would lack synagogues and Torah academies he commenced with the words: ”how goodly are your tents, etc?” [The word אהל for “tent” in which to study G–d’ Torah occurs frequently, commencing with Yaakov in Genesis 25,27. Ed.] He quotes some other “blessings” of Bileam there as similarly revealing what his curse would have sounded like had he been permitted to pronounce it. Clearly, he would not have had time enough to pronounce all these curses in the minute time span G–d remains angry. This proves that the very beginning of uttering what was in his mind is what is critical.

THOU SHALT NOT ‘THOVEH LO’ — “you shall not ‘long’ for him, nor shall you love him. Because it is said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself¹⁶²Leviticus 19:18. — [it is necessary to caution that] this one [who seeks to mislead you into idolatry] you shall not love.” This is Rashi’s language quoting the Sifre.¹⁶³Sifre, R’eih 89. But in the Gemara the Rabbis have said [in connection with this verse]:¹⁶⁴Sanhedrin 61b. “But [if the one misled] avah (wanted) and consented [to the words of the inciter, although he actually did not worship the idols, the misleader] is guilty” [thus showing that the word thoveh is not an expression of “longing” as Rashi holds, but of “willingness”]. And this is correct, for avah is an expression of “desire,” as it is said, And the Eternal thy G-d was not ‘avah’ (willing) to hearken unto Balaam,¹⁶⁵Further, 23:6. meaning “He did not desire.” So also, he is not ‘avah’ (willing) to perform the duty of my husband’s brother,¹⁶⁶Ibid., 25:7. [this expression being based upon the statement in the first part of that verse], and if the man ‘desires’ not to take his brother’s wife. Thus, thou shalt not ‘thoveh lo’ means [“thou shalt not be willing] in your heart [to give credence to him”], nor hearken unto him by consenting to him, saying “I will do so; I will go and I will worship the idol you mentioned.” And [the inciter] becomes liable to the death penalty because of his [the victim’s] consent. And such is the opinion of Onkelos [who translated]: “Do not accept [the offer] from him.” Now these two prohibitions [Thou shalt not be willing to give credence to him in your heart, nor shalt thou hearken unto him] are like Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s house¹⁶⁷Above, 5:18. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 251-252. [which prohibits us from desiring what belongs to another], and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house¹⁶⁸Exodus 20:14. “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 250-251. [which prohibits us from scheming to acquire it], so that if he desires it in his heart, he infringes the first prohibition, and if he goes on to do as he thought, he transgresses also the second negative commandment.¹⁶⁹Here too, if in his heart he gives credence to the words of the inciter he violates the first prohibition, and if he also consents to worship the idol he infringes the second negative commandment as well.