Pensamento Judaico sobre Números 24:4

Since becoming a morally perfect personality is impossible unless one is in possession of all possible virtues, it is almost impossible to encounter a morally perfect human being, since no one has been endowed with all these virtues. The only way to progress towards moral perfection then is to refine and and constantly purify one's personality. First, impure elements in one's personality have to be eliminated, then the remaining acceptable raw material has to be brought to a state high polish. Just as a mirror which has been silvered with faulty material and the backing of which has not been polished properly, cannot reproduce a true image, so a person cannot reflect Torah and truth in a proper manner unless he has perfected himself in the aforementioned fashion. In Deut. 4,9-10, Moses warns the Jewish people that if they allow the purity they had enjoyed at Mount Sinai to become tainted, they will be headed down the path of corruption. Our soul is like a mirror which reflects the images it has absorbed. Unless the mirror is kept in perfect condition, it will reflect distorted images. Even marginal failings in a person's character distort his whole personality. Maimonides points this out in Chapter seven of his introduction to the tractate Avot. Prophetic visions departed from the prophets when they were angry, i.e. when they suffered personality lapses. A perfect character can also not be attained unless it is accompanied by a high level of intellectual accomplishments. Similarly, true wisdom cannot be attained without accompanying moral accomplishments. Since we come across many people who possess either moral or intellectual accomplishments but rarely both, we must assume that what we observe are the results of natural endowment only. These endowments do not reflect the results of their owners having refined them in order to attain the maximum achievements they are capable of in either field. Only when morality is the outgrowth of one's intellect can we be sure that such morality is comprehensive and extends to a person's entire personality. This in spite of the fact that certain traits are not necessarily observable by outsiders unless the need arises to demonstrate that their owner indeed possesses such good traits. In Proverbs 20,5-12, Solomon points out that it is a common error to attribute a virtuous personality to someone who has merely displayed a few virtues, without our probing if these virtues are natural or have been acquired, i.e. developed. If these virtues are natural, they are quite meaningless in an ethical sense. Only the Lord can pronounce judgment about whose virtue has been acquired and whose constitutes a natural trait. One way of realizing that it is natural is if one sees a person practice one particular virtue, whereas in all other areas of life that person disregards most virtues. This would prove that such an individual did not come by the virtue he did practice thanks to his own efforts, but that he was fortunate enough to have been born with it. Our sages in Kiddushin 39 tell us that "He who performs one mitzvah is given credit, his lifespan is extended, and he inherits the land of Israel. He, however, who neglects to perform one mitzvah will experience the reverse." Obviously, the performance of one single mitzvah cannot qualify for all that much reward, something which is normally made contingent on the fulfilment of all mitzvot. It is equally obvious that a person who fails to perform a single mitzvah does not need to be told that he does not rate a reward for that failure. The meaning of the passage then is that he who performs one mitzvah in all its ramifications, qualifies for this great reward, because in order to do what he did, all his virtues had to be involved. The manner in which we relate to the that we have an opportunity to perform, reveals the attitude we have towards all mitzvot if we were able to perform them. The Talmud, when questioning the special reward offered those who perform the commandment of honoring father and mother, answers that anyone who performs a commandment thereby exceeding his natural inclination to do so, is in line for such special reward. Since it is natural for a person to honor his father and mother, the Torah, and subsequently the Talmud, use this mitzvah as the example to illustrate the principle involved. Similarly, when the Talmud (Sotah 3) says that if someone has commenced performing a mitzvah, one urges him to complete it. The word "a mitzvah,” is the same as "any mitzvah" or all mitzvoth. The attitude displayed when performing a mitzvah signals whether such an act would lead to the performance of other mitzvoth. The famous principle of "mitzvah gorreret mitzvah," that performance of one good deed leads to the performance of other good deeds, reflects the same thought. If any of these good deeds have been performed because of natural inclinations, such performance is no guarantee of the performance of other good deeds in the future; therefore, no credit is given to the one performing it. The Talmud in Horiot 10 tells us that the verse "The ways of the Lord are straight, the righteous can walk therein, whereas the wicked will stumble therein" (Hoseah 14,10), means that he who eats the Passover because he is hungry and wants to stuff himself is called a sinner though he complies with the ritual; this teaches us the same lesson. Abstention from pork should not be dictated by one's natural revulsion to eating pork, but should be due to the Torah having prohibited it (compare Torat Kohanim Parshat Kedoshim 89). Rabbi Akiva in Sofrim 4 relates how it happened to him that even preoccupation with a mitzvah due to a pure motivation, involved him in a sinful act, because he did not have his priorities right. He had dragged a body for six miles on the Sabbath in order to bring it to proper burial. He had been unaware that such a body, if there are no relatives whose duty it is to perform the burial rites on it, automatically acquires the ground it lies on. This would make the act of moving it on the Sabbath unnessary and a transgression against the law of carrying in the public domain on the Sabbath. The Rabbis chided Rabbi Akiva, saying that he had been guilty of a transgression every step of the way. Aristotle in Ethics Chapter four, also argues that the validity of, say, generosity as a virtue derives from the nature and personality of the donor. Therefore, he who gives to the wrong cause or for the wrong motive, cannot be described as "liberal" or "generous." This trait of "generosity of heart" was an essential ingredient in Abraham's personality, which is always in evidence in conjunction with other virtues, all of which contributed to refinement of his personality even further. No doubt, Abraham had recognized that the acquisition of material wealth could not be the ultimate purpose in life, that there had to be higher values than that. Not only that, but such knowledge could only be attained through prophetic insight. In his search for truths, of which Isaiah 64,3 has said, "No human eye has beheld them without the help of G-d," the term machazeh, vision, is most appropriate at this point. Maimonides in his Moreh, chapter forty-five section two, already pointed out that the lowest level of such prophetic insight is comprehension by means of the parable. Indeed, most of the message Abraham receives during the revelation at the "covenant between the pieces" is by means of the parable. Concerning man's natural fear of the day when the strange union of body and soul is dissolved, the day of death, G-d reassures Abraham that he should not entertain any fear. Concerning all his other worries, G-d reassures him of His continued support. He also tells him that the reward will be of quite a different calibre than is normally understood by the term "reward." G-d’s promise regarding future possession of the land by Abraham's descendants is believed. Abraham, aware of the great difficulties faced by any human being who tries to live up to these lofty principles, asks for a sign to reassure him that his heirs will be able to muster the moral strength to qualify for the fulfilment of these promises. The answer, couched in terms of the sacrifice and what it symbolized, is in accordance with both the views of Rabbi Nechemyah and those of Rabbi Chiyah as stated in Bereshit Rabbah 44. The divided animals represent the nations and their respective leaders, all headed for eventual destruction. The undivided bird, by contrast, represents the Jewish people who will endure and withstand the attack by the vultures, thanks to the merit of their ancestor Abraham. But over and above that, there are inherent values that guarantee the fulfilment of G-d’s promise in due course.

In fact, since according to our sages, Moses had been handed the keys to all G'ds treasure chambers, he is criticized when he resorts merely to prayer instead of action, deed. At the sea, when threatened by the Egyptians who were close on his heels, G'd says to him "why are you crying out to Me, tell the Jewish people to get going!" (Exodus 14,15) Not for nothing did G'd say to him "see I have made you Lord over Pharaoh." (Exodus 7,1) Moses was like a deity who would employ Aaron as his prophet to impose his will upon Pharaoh. The contrast with Bileam is striking. The latter, by his own admission, had no idea when G'd would respond to his requests, and was certainly quite powerless to act on his own and display supernatural powers. Every utterance made by Bileam in his capacity as seer, needed approval by G'd. He did not even have latitude to depart from his prepared text. (Numbers 22,38) His utter lack of vision is best demonstrated when he said to his she-ass "if I had a sword in my hand I would kill you now." (Numbers 22,29) The Midrash that stated that among the nations there did arise a prophet, did not mean to compare Bileam with Moses, but to point out the contrast between the two. Even when a prophet does arise among the gentiles, there is no comparison at all. In every vital matter, Moses was far superior to Bileam. (see Sifri on Deut. 34,10) In order to convey G'ds messages, Moses did not need to hear them spelled out, since he always found himself on the right wavelength. Bileam, on the other hand, had to stress that what he conveyed was the word of G'd. The meaning of the Sifri in Deut. 34,10, that Moses did not know who was going to talk to him, whereas Bileam knew, is, that Moses did not need to prepare himself for an encounter with G'd, whereas Bileam had to. Moses communicated with G'd from an upright position, Bileam only while he was prostrate. The fact that Bileam was uncircumcised was a further impediment to his receptiveness for Divine communication. Prior to circumcision, even an Abraham received the word of G'd only while falling down. Not until after the circumcision when G'd addressed him, (Genesis 18,1) do we find him remaining seated. The gentile is communicated with only at night, since he is compared to a mistress, someone whom one visits discreetly during the hours of darkness. Israel, however, is like a wife with whom one communicates openly during all hours of the day. When Bileam describes himself as "one who hears the words of G'd, receives visions of the Almighty, (Numbers 24,4) one forms the impression that he was indeed on very familiar terms with the Almighty. However, this is misleading. Whereas the chef in the king's kitchen must be familiar with every ingredient in the king's meal, the maitre D' does not have to concern himself with every detail. When the Midrash, in apparent inexactitude, states that whereas Moses did not know "what was talking, whereas Bileam knew "what was talking," the reference is to the subject matter. Bileam who knew that a specific topic would be discussed with him without preamble, needed advance knowledge of that subject. Similarly, he knew when this subject would come up. This is why he could tell Balak's messengers to stay overnight till he would get instructions. Moses needed no advance knowledge of the subject matter, nor did he ever have to wait for an opportune moment. As soon as he entered the tabernacle, "he would hear the voice of the Lord talk to him." (Numbers 7, 89.) The somewhat peculiarly worded Midrash (Sifri) mentioned, has yet another meaning. Since Bileam's mode of communication with G'd was not on the level of "face to face," he could identify the source of what was speaking to him, since "it" assumed a certain form. Moses, on the other hand, while on the level of "face to face" communication had also been told by G'd "you cannot see My face, you can only see My rear, i.e. in retrospect." (Exodus 33,20) At the actual moment of the communication, he never knew how close to the "face to face" level the emanation from which he heard the voice actually was. Bileam had a kind of visual contact machazeh. Not so Moses, to whom a completely disembodied voice would not present a conceptual problem. The thrust of the whole commentary on the verse "there did not arise another prophet etc." is not to minimise the accomplishments of an Elijah in reviving the dead, nor to belittle Joshua arresting the sun and moon in their respective orbits. The commentary wishes to underline that no one other than Moses performed such miracles except by their own initiative. None were as privy to G'ds intentions as had been Moses. For that very reason, namely that he was on such intimate terms with G'd, it would have been practically impossible for Moses to have produced a miracle on his own initiative. If the whole portion is written to demonstrate the inadequacy of the most brilliant of gentile prophets, then we can understand Rabbi Yitzchak's statement that commencing with the functioning of the tabernacle, no more prophetic powers were granted to the gentiles.

(1+2+3) Since Balak had been aware of how Israel had tricked the Canaanites into confrontation after having appeared to sidestep Edom and Moab, his people were divided in their view of the Israelites. Some were afraid that Israel's tactics were designed to destroy Moab eventually. Of them the Torah says "vayagar, it was afraid. The other group was concerned about the encirclement that was taking place and that would eventually change the neighbouring countries. Balak "saw" the division amongst his subjects. Since Midian as one of Moab's neighbours would be the first country vitally affected by the Israelites' presence in that region, they were invited as allies. The message to Bileam telling him of the facts, especially the miracle that Israel had managed to escape from Egypt, made the request particularly urgent. Describing the apparent hopelessness of defeating Israel by warfare alone, Balak depicts the huge masses of people, suggesting by the use of the words "I" and "we" in the same sentence that possibly, through combined efforts of Bileam's curses and warriors led by Balak, Israel could be defeated. The reference to Bileam's ability to confer blessings, indicated that Balak was desirous of obtaining those blessings for his own people at the same time. Alternately, perhaps he committed a Freudian slip having reference to the blessings which Bileam would in fact bestow on the Jewish people, instead of curses. The reason that Balak's messengers took the magicians' instruments with them was to test the sincerity of Bileam. Our sages teach that the difference between the real prophet and the charlatan, the pretender lies in the former's ability to communicate the word of G'd at any time, whereas the pretender must wait for certain horoscopic constellations to appear in the correct correlation to each other. The ability of Bileam to respond immediately, would indicate that his response was genuine, was the word of G'd. As soon as Bileam asked the messengers to stay overnight till he could consult G'd, they realised that the undertaking did not meet with G'ds approval. This is why the elders of Midian, who were familiar with Bileam's mode of operation, did not even bother to wait. Only the Moabite elders stayed overnight, kessem, the magician's tool was the infallible instrument then, by means of which one could gauge G'ds real attitude as revealed by Bileam. That is why the elders needed the instrument, not Bileam. (4) Of all the improper enquiries that can be addressed to G'd, there is hardly one that could be more offensive than the request to commit an obviously criminal act and expect Divine blessing for such an act. If one were to ask a Rabbi's approval for commission of an act of adultery, surely this would be an insult to the Rabbi. If the questioner himself is known to be well versed in Jewish law, the insult would be even greater. Surely the first sin of Bileam consisted in asking G'd to curse a people so obviously His favourites. The very notion that G'd would undo all that He had done for that nation in order to enable Bileam to earn a fat fee from Balak is culpable. Therefore G'ds first reply was "what kind of people have come to you?" When Bileam uses Balak's terminology of describing the Jewish people, he adds insult to injury. Even though in the mouth of Balak, the descripition of the Jewish people is far from flattering, and Moab, owing its very existence to the patriarch of the Jewish people should have had every reason to refer to them with respect, Balak, who thought he had reason to fear them, looked at them from a distorted point of view. Bileam however, had no such excuse. In referring to G'ds chosen people in such derogatory terms, he made himself even more culpable than by his audacity in approaching G'd on the subject altogether. In keeping with his supposed stature, he should have categorically refused to involve his prophetic powers in such an undertaking. When the Talmud Shabbat 104, teaches that whoever wants to heap impurity upon himself is given an opportunity to do so, the question "who are the people that have come to you?" illustrates that dictum. Surely G'd had been aware who the people were, but Bileam deserved to enmesh himself more deeply in his sinful quest. The Jewish people to whom the term Adam applies, (chapter 3 essay 8) certainly deserves better of Bileam. Bileam seems at pains to deny the Jewish people's claim to four characteristics. 1) He refers to the Jewish people as nameless, describes them merely as " the people who came out of Egypt"; he makes it appear as if this people did not even qualify for a name of its own. 2) In referring to the Jewish people's departure from Egypt, Bileam seems intent to deny that G'd had played any role in that exodus. This is why he is made to emphasize later who it was that took Israel out of Egypt. "The Lord who took them out of Egypt." (Numbers 23,22-3. 3) He refers to Israel as "covering the earth," indicating that Israel lacks orderliness, and is comparable to a horde of wild beasts. Therefore, he is made to pay tribute to the civil and moral manner in which Israel has set up camp. ("How beautiful are thy tents" Numbers 24, 5) 4) In wishing to curse the Jewish nation, he denies them the basic distinction of having been made "in the image of G'd," an attribute that applies to all human beings and is rooted in the dominion G'd has granted man over the animal kingdom. To atone for this insult, he is forced later to prophesy that this very nation will produce the Messiah who will exercise dominion over all of mankind. Haman had also begun to denigrate the Jewish people by referring to them as being nameless. (Esther 3,8) Bileam has to atone for this subsequently, by referring to Israel by both its names, i.e. Israel and Jacob. Notwithstanding any of the above, G'ds reply to Bileam in this instance was very civil. "Do not go with them, do not curse this nation which is blessed." G'd is trying to tell Bileam that to accompany these people is improper, regardless of the purpose of the mission. In his wickedness, Bileam relates only part of G'ds reply, namely the part about not being allowed to go. The part about the futility of the undertaking he withheld. Understandably, this led the elders of Moab to believe that Bileam's refusal was motivated by considerations other than Divine opposition. (5+6) When, upon arrival of a more distinguished set of emissaries, they reproach him by saying "do not hold back in coming to me," Bileam has the audacity to ask G'd about the same undertaking a second time. G'd in His anger, answers him in such a manner that he will be embarassed publicly when he does go with them. The ambiguous nature of G'ds reply was designed to encourage him to go, in order that he humiliate himself in front of the princes from whom he was seeking honour and glory. When G'd in His reply said "if these men came to call you, go with them, only the word I speak to you you may do," (instead of "you may say") this gave Bileam leeway to think that he still possessed freedom of expression. When Bileam tried to use this apparent loophole in G'ds instructions, G'd became angry and sent His angel to intercept him. The three stoppages and beatings administered to Bileam's she-ass demonstrated clearly the nature of Bileam's sin and his subsequent chastisement. The first time the angel positions himself in such a manner that he could be bypassed without great exertion. Bileam should have refused the request by Balak's messengers. Instead, he chose to circumvent the will of G'd. The ass does likewise, arousing Bileam's anger. He strikes her, but not too severely. Balak too, when he hears Bileam bless Israel the first time instead of cursing it, admonishes Bileam when he says "I have called you to curse my enemies and you have seen fit to bless them." The second time the angel positions himself in a narrow passage, leaving the she-ass no way to pass him without hurting the rider in the process. This arouses more anger in Bileam, he strikes her again, presumably harder than the first time. This corresponds to Bileam's second sin, when he encouraged the elders of Moab to think G'd might change His mind in favour of the planned mission. Balak gives Bileam a tongue lashing by saying "if you cannot curse, at least do not bless." Bileam is forced to admit that he is quite powerless in the matter, and has to do what G'd says to him. The final confrontation between the angel and the she-ass is such that the latter cannot proceed against the angel without incurring death. Therefore, she lies down, the greatest protest imaginable against her master. Bileam reacts violently, striking her with a rod this time. In the ensuing dialogue between the she-ass and her master, Bileam is made to acknowledge that his longstanding and intimate knowledge of the she-ass's behaviour should have alerted him to the fact that only an unusual set of circumstances could have accounted for such a radical change in the behaviour of an animal whose primary function it was to serve as transportation for her master. Similarly, Bileam had reached the stage where he had to refuse Balak's request without even double checking with G'd whether it still pleased Him to bless Israel. When Balak became aware of this outright refusal of Bileam even to try to carry out the task he had been hired for, Balak sends him home in disgust. Bileam's humiliation is thus complete and corresponds to the manner in which he who had been privileged to enjoy visions other mortals had not been granted to see, had nevertheless rebelled against G'd. (6) The angel too had remonstrated with Bileam about his having struck the she-ass three times. Bileam who had accused the she-ass of having humiliated him, had himself been guilty of trying to manipulate G'd three times, and thus to humiliate Him. His punishment therefore fits his crime. When the angel finally becomes visible to Bileam, the latter admitting his sin, he volunteers to go home. Now, however, he has to carry on, in order to suffer public humiliation not only in the presence of the elders of Moab. Those elders, seeing that Bileam could not even control his she-ass, surely had developed their own opinion of the effectiveness of a man like this against the Jewish nation. The thrust of the she-ass's argument was that Bileam of all people should not have condemned her conduct without examination of the circumstances. He had known her long enough. Similarly, Bileam's longstanding familiarity with the ways of G'd, should have prevented him from accepting an assignment so obviously at variance with the friendship for Israel G'd had revealed in His relationship with that nation. If indeed, Bileam refers to himself as the shetum ha-ayin, the one who sees on one eye, he may well be referring to his lack of vision in a belated recognition of his own humble stature and lack of insight. His eyes were opened only after he had displayed blindness. This is the meaning of the words nofel u-gluy eynayim, "after he had fallen, his eyes were opened." (Numbers 24,4) Bileam, in acknowledging that he had sinned because he had been unaware of the angel's presence, acknowledges that ignorance itself can be sinful. If someone strikes his parents because he is unaware of a statute fordidding such an act, he cannot plead innocence, since it was up to him to realise that such conduct is intolerable in the eyes of the law. Similarly, a man of the intellectual stature of Bileam could not plead ignorance as an excuse, and should have been alerted by the animal's strange behaviour. The reason the animal itself did not disclose the presence of the angel, has been discussed in chapter ten. In chapter twenty one we have discussed why Bileam had chosen to ride a she-ass. (8) Now that Bileam had received an inkling of what was likely to be in store for him,- private as well as public humiliation-, he tries to back out and offers to go home to save himself further disgrace. But at this point the angel orders him to proceed and to travel with the messengers until he will have played the part that G'd had assigned to him. (Perhaps the use of the word im, describes the relationship with the messengers, underlining that he is now captive for the purpose of this mission) (9) The phrasing of the instruction "only what I tell you, you can say" (Numbers 22,35) robs Bileam even of the freedom of speech which he had previously thought he still possessed, when G'd had restricted him only with the words "it you must do." When he arrived in Moab, Bileam felt obligated to acquaint Balak with his impotence, and he downgrades the value of anything he may say beforehand, by explaining that he is acting under Heavenly compulsion. It appears that Balak had not wanted him to come to him, but rather to proceed towards Israel and curse that nation. Balak's request, (22,17) "do not hold back walking elay, means "on my behalf" rather than "towards me." Balak had meant to convey that he would compensate Bileam handsomely even if the latter never came to Moab, but would merely curse Israel from a suitable vantage point. Balak tries to forestall Bileam coming to the capital of Moab. Bileam stresses that even though he had "arrived" i.e. come, he did not "go." He is trying to tell Balak that his appearance is due only to coercion from on high. Whereas previously Bileam had been willing to "go" without "doing" anything of substance, now he was not even in a position to "say" something of his own free will. ("I am not even able to speak" 22,38) Whereas G'd had only forbidden action, the angel even forbade speech. Thus the angel is not merely repeating G'ds previous instructions. In spite of all this, resourceful Bileam proceeds to emulate Israel's sacrificial rites, when he builds seven altars and offers only pure animals, hoping that if this does not advance his cause, at least it will not hinder it. When he expresses the hope that "perhaps the Lord will meet with me,” (23,3) he admits that he can never be sure of establishing communication with G'd He is quite unlike Moses of whom the expression "he called" is always used. The one and only time G'd had in fact communicated with Bileam directly, is carefully described as vayikor, as a kind of "happening." Even this happening never seems to have occurred again. Bileam now had to employ his prophetic insights to compensate for his derogatory references to Israel previously. Instead of allowing Israel to remain nameless, he now uses both the term "Israel" and "Jacob" to describe it. (10) He confesses that Balak had dragged him down from what once had been a position of lofty grandeur. (23,7) He accords Balak his full title "king of Moab," not as previously. When Bileam says "how can I curse when G'd has not cursed?" he acknowledges that he had not had any business asking G'd about such a mission. Conversely, when David suffered curses at the hands of Shimi ben Geyrah, (Samuel II 16,8) the former could not believe that Shimi could have done so except if he had been so instructed by G'd. Once David became aware that he had been giving Shimi too much credit for having acted morally, he told his son Solomon how to deal with Shimi when the time would be ripe. Bileam now proceeds to extol Israel's virtues. "I view as towering higher than rocks;" (23,9) "they are in a world apart from others, a nation that dwells in isolated splendour."