Chasidut su Deuteronomio 34:10
וְלֹֽא־קָ֨ם נָבִ֥יא ע֛וֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל כְּמֹשֶׁ֑ה אֲשֶׁר֙ יְדָע֣וֹ יְהוָ֔ה פָּנִ֖ים אֶל־פָּנִֽים׃
E da allora in Israele non è sorto un profeta come Mosè, che l'Eterno conosceva faccia a faccia;
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 27,20. “and you shall command the Children of Israel to take to you pure olive oil, etc.;” the expression ויקחו אליך instead of ויביאו אליך, “they shall bring to you,” or ויקחו לי “they shall take for Me,“ as at the beginning of Parshat T’rumah, is unusual, to say the least. The point is that the menorah together with all its details was part of a vision that Moses had been shown by G’d while he had been on the Mountain, just as he had been shown the other components of the Tabernacle there. Being shown all this by G’d had been an expression of G’d’s joy at the degree of awe and love for Him that Moses had achieved, a level of closeness to the Creator not achieved by any subsequent prophet. When Moses was instructed to tell the people to bring the pure oil for lighting the menorah “to you,” instead of “to Me,” [and he was instructed to write this down in the Torah, Ed.] this was to tell the reader to what exceptional spiritual heights Moses had risen. This is why the Torah testified after Moses’ death (Deuteronomy, 34,10) that no prophet who was as close to G’d as Moses ever arose after him in history.
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
Another approach among our sages to understanding the line in Deut. 34,10 that there never arose in Israel a prophet of the stature of Moses, implying that among the gentiles there did arise such a prophet, also shares the conviction that Bileam on no account could be compared to Moses on a moral basis.
The greatest difference between them, visible to all, was that Moses during all of his life employed his gift of prophecy beneficially at all times. He put his own life at risk on behalf of his people many times when trying to save them from G’d’s justifiable anger at them.
Bileam used his gift exactly in the opposite manner, as his accomplishments were achieved by invoking curses. What then did our sages mean when they implied that a prophet of similar or even superior stature did arise among the gentiles?
According to the Ari z’al they compared the vantage points from which both Moses and Bileam pronounced their respective prophecies. Both of them endeavoured to procure the fulfillment of their prophetic announcements from the same lofty source in heaven; alas Bileam used his power destructively, whereas Moses invariably used his power constructively.
Our sages in Yevamot 49 have stated that whereas all other prophets saw indistinct visions, Moses saw a clear vision. This can best be understood by a parable. When a king issues orders to his servants, the servants hearing it only hear the voice of the king when he issues his orders. However, it is clear that each order before being issued had been preceded by the king thinking about if first and formulating it afterwards. Any person who has been privy to the considerations which preceded the orders being issued, in other words, someone who is aware of the motivation resulting in these orders, has an advantage over someone who has only heard the actual order being issued. This was basically the difference between Moses’ level of prophecy and that of other prophets. Moses also understood the reason why G’d had seen fit to issue the various commandments when He did so. People who are unaware of the background to the orders they have been ordered to perform are compared by the Talmud to having experienced indistinct images. Another way of expressing this distinction is the sages saying that other prophets prophesied on a level introduced by כה, whereas Moses prophesied on a level introduced by זה.
The greatest difference between them, visible to all, was that Moses during all of his life employed his gift of prophecy beneficially at all times. He put his own life at risk on behalf of his people many times when trying to save them from G’d’s justifiable anger at them.
Bileam used his gift exactly in the opposite manner, as his accomplishments were achieved by invoking curses. What then did our sages mean when they implied that a prophet of similar or even superior stature did arise among the gentiles?
According to the Ari z’al they compared the vantage points from which both Moses and Bileam pronounced their respective prophecies. Both of them endeavoured to procure the fulfillment of their prophetic announcements from the same lofty source in heaven; alas Bileam used his power destructively, whereas Moses invariably used his power constructively.
Our sages in Yevamot 49 have stated that whereas all other prophets saw indistinct visions, Moses saw a clear vision. This can best be understood by a parable. When a king issues orders to his servants, the servants hearing it only hear the voice of the king when he issues his orders. However, it is clear that each order before being issued had been preceded by the king thinking about if first and formulating it afterwards. Any person who has been privy to the considerations which preceded the orders being issued, in other words, someone who is aware of the motivation resulting in these orders, has an advantage over someone who has only heard the actual order being issued. This was basically the difference between Moses’ level of prophecy and that of other prophets. Moses also understood the reason why G’d had seen fit to issue the various commandments when He did so. People who are unaware of the background to the orders they have been ordered to perform are compared by the Talmud to having experienced indistinct images. Another way of expressing this distinction is the sages saying that other prophets prophesied on a level introduced by כה, whereas Moses prophesied on a level introduced by זה.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy