ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף במדבר 7:89

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.

Should it, however, be considered necessary to assume here an ellipsis, according to the method of Onkelos, who supplies in some instances the term “the Glory,” in others “the Word,” and in others “the Divine Presence,” as the context may require in each particular case, we may also supply here the word “voice,” and explain the passage, “And a voice from the Lord passed before him and called.” We have already shown that the verb ‘abar, “he passed,” can be applied to the voice, as in “And they caused a voice to pass through the camp” (Exod. 36:6). According to this explanation, it was the voice which called. No objection can be raised to applying the verb kara (he called) to kol (voice), for a similar phrase occurs in the Bible in reference to God’s commands to Moses, “He heard the voice speaking unto him”; and, in the same manner as it can be said “the voice spoke,” we may also say “the voice called”; indeed, we can even support this application of the verbs “to say, “and “to call,” to “the voice,” by parallel passages, as “A voice saith ‘Cry,’ and it says ‘What shall I cry?’” (Isa. 40:6). According to this view, the meaning of the passage under discussion would be: “A voice of God passed before him and called, ‘Eternal, Eternal, All-powerful, All-merciful, and All-gracious!’” (The word Eternal is repeated; it is in the vocative, for the Eternal is the one who is called. Comp. Moses, Moses! Abraham, Abraham!) This, again, is a very appropriate explanation of the text.

Another meaning of the word is “the presence and existence of a person”; comp. “He died in the presence (pene) [i.e., in the lifetime] of all his brethren” (Gen. 25:18); “And in the presence (pene) of all the people I will be glorified” (Lev. 10:3); “He will surely curse thee in thy very presence” (paneka) (Job 1:11). In the same sense the word is used in the following passage, “And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face,” i.e., both being present, without any intervening medium between them. Comp. “Come, let us look one another in the face” (2 Kings 14:8); and also “The Lord talked with you face to face” (Deut. 5:4); instead of which we read more plainly in another place, “Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude: only ye heard a voice” (ib. 4:12). The hearing of the voice without seeing any similitude is termed “face to face.” Similarly do the words, “And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face” correspond to “There he heard the voice of one speaking unto him” (Num. 7:89), in the description of God’s speaking to Moses. Thus it will be clear to you that the perception of the Divine voice without the intervention of an angel is expressed by “face to face.” In the same sense the word panim must be understood in “And my face (panai) shall not be seen” (Exod. 33:23); i.e., my true existence, as it is, cannot be comprehended.