HE TOOK UP HIS THEME AND SAID: FROM

ARAM HAS BALAK BROUGHT ME, MOAB'S KINGFROM THE HILLS OF THE EAST:

COME, CURSE ME JACOB, COME, TELL ISRAEL'S DOOM! HOW CAN I DAMN WHOM GOD HAS

APART, NOT RECKONED AMONG THE NATIONS.

(Bamidbar

23: 7-9)

The lord alone did guide it, no alien god at his side.

(Devarim 32: 12)

There is a People that Dwells Apart – Promise

or Challenge?

A people that dwells apart [levadad] – as he said: The Lord alone [badad] did

guide it – so how can I destroy them?

(Seforno Bamidbar 23:9)

The Lord alone did guide it – He guided them in the wilderness alone (unassisted) and yet in

security.

No alien god at His side – for not one of the gods of the other peoples possessed the power to

display its might and to war with them. Our rabbis, however, explained it as a

promise referring to the future, and so, too, does Onkelos render it.

But I say that they

are words of reproof which

he said with the view of calling heaven and earth as witnesses against them,

and also in order that this song should be witness, because He knew that they

would in future prove faithless and would bear in mind neither the past deeds

that He performed for them nor those that would come to pass, which at a future

time He would do for them. For this reason it is necessary to make the text fit

in with this and with that (the past and the future). Indeed, the whole section

is to be connected with, Remember the days of old, consider the years of

generation after generation (32:7): Thus has He done for them and thus will He

in the future do for them – all this they ought to bear in mind.

(Rashi on Devarim 32:12,

Silberman translation)

There is a people that dwells alone – It will live in an insulated land without

much intercourse with other nations, living its "internal" national

mission as an am [people] as a national social body, and will not seek

its greatness as goy [nation] among goyim [nations], not as a

powerful imposing national body among the other individual nations.

(Rabbi S. R. Hirsch on

Bamidbar 23:9, Levy translation)

Bilaam

Comes to Tel-Aviv

Shira Leibowitz Schmidt

And

Jacob, and thy dwellings, O State of Israel.

If Bilaam were to come visit Tel Aviv

today, what blessing would he utter when seeing in the center of the city women

and girls dressed as if they are at the beach? What would his reaction be to Israelis

who watch "adult" cable television certified kosher by the Israeli

Supreme Court "bagatz" judges who claim it

is a basic right to watch programs debasing humans? What would Bilaam utter about the Jewish people if he lifted up his

eyes and saw the gay parade in the heart of Jerusalem

– would he still be able to bless us?

At

the beginning of Chapter 24 in our parashah Bilaam is on the verge of

giving up his plan to curse the people of Israel.

enchantments, but he set his face towards the desert" (verse 1). According to one of the Aramaic

translations, as a last ditch effort to curse us and to remind God of our

earlier sin, Bilaam faces in the direction of the desert where we had

constructed and sinned with the golden calf. But when he faces the desert and

sees the people in their encampment, he views a sight so impressive that he

abandons his intention to curse the people of Israel,

or as Rashi comments, "he made up his mind not to curse them (i.e. he

decided to comply with the spirit of God, ruah Elokim)."

In the language of Torah, "And Bilaam lifted

up his eyes, and he saw Israel

was upon him" (24:2).

The

term "dwelling in their tents according to their tribes" that

the Torah uses is puzzling, because it should have said "according to

the tribes." This prompts Rashi to explain why the Torah says "their

tribes" rather than "the tribes" – a seemingly small

difference. Rashi sees in the term "their tribes" a veiled

reference to the modesty with which the Israelites conducted themselves: "He

saw each tribe dwelling by itself not intermingled one with another; he saw

that the entrances of their tents were not exactly facing each other so that

one could not peer into the neighbor's tent".

The

spatial arrangement of the tents, and the values of modesty this symbolized,

were so impressive that Rashi surprising repeats his comment three verses later

when explaining what Bilaam means by the term "goodly tents" in the

famous statement that we repeat each morning, "How goodly are they

tents O, Jacob, and thy dwelling places O, Israel!" (24:5). It is not the color of the tents nor the quality of the material that garnered for them the

compliment "goodly tents." Again, Rashi reminds us that Bilaam

uttered this praise, "because he saw that the

entrances of their tents were not exactly facing each other." The mitzvot involved in guarding your eyes and the prohibition

of looking at provocative sights are alluded to in Rashi's commentary, and the punctilious observance of these

mitzvot elicit this famous blessing from Bilaam.

The

Talmud (Baba Batra 60a) elaborates in

fine detail on the halakhot related to the building and arranging of homes

in order to concretize and maximize privacy and to protect intimacy.

Today

our homes have a variety of window coverings: curtains, roll-up blinds, shades,

shutter, movable screens, drapes, and vertical blinds. Our doorways are usually

not aligned opposite our neighbors' doors, and if they are we have Rav Bariah

to keep out peepers. However we put on public display those aspects of our

lives that should be hidden from view- be it in provocative dress and behavior,

in what we broadcast in movies and television, in what we advertise in the

media and on billboards. We don't even need to "peer into the neighbor's

tent" because our neighbor is exposing and parading his private life

before our eyes.

There

are three levels of modesty. The first pertains to every man and woman. Even if

an individual is alone on a desert island, he or she should dress and behave

modestly because we are created in the Divine image.

On

the second or social level, modesty is called for in the deportment and

interactions between men and women. The halakhot that go under the

much-maligned rubric of tzniut mandate

a level of restraint and propriety that helps minimize the possibility that men

and women will violate sexual prohibitions. Dr. Hanna Silberstein of Cornell

University has termed this the "public

service mode of modesty." Responsibility for public propriety falls upon

men as well as women, but in a different manner. Each gender is accountable in

specific ways for this public service modesty.

Often

overlooked is the demand by Jewish law for a third level of modesty, the

national. Bilaam referred to the modesty of the people of Israel

as a whole. (Unfortunately, this high level of modesty was quite fragile, as we

see from the tragic ending of our parashah). This

national level of modesty has two aspects relevant to contemporary Israeli

issues: that of being decent neighbors, and that of the halakhic-spiritual dimension.

(a) Modesty and neighborly relations.

Are

we good neighbors vis-a-vis the Arab population? Do we exhibit respect for

their sensitivity on the issue of modesty? The liberal Western values that were

brought to the Land of Israel

by many of the early Zionist were thorns in the sides of the Arab population

here. In building of the State of Israel, we brought improvements in

agriculture, health, and transportation to this region which was populated by a

traditional Muslim society, and thereby raised the standard of living for all

here. But we lowered the standard of living when it came to modesty by bring

excessive permissiveness (in movies, advertising, media, billboards, dress,

etc.) Our disregard for the values of modesty added to the friction between the

Jewish and Moslem sectors, and gave legitimacy to some Arabs to claim that we

are a Western, foreign implant here and therefore have no right to be here

wreaking havoc in this delicate area.

Adrian

Mirvish, a professor of philosophy at California State University (Chico, California) has written on the

mis-match between Arabs and Jews here in his essay (Midstream

January 2002) titled, "On Gay Marches, the Peace Process, and Others."

"Can

you imagine a

large, gay, Arab parade winding its way through the streets of Jericho, Hebron or Nablus? What is the problem?

Why can't this type of event in fact take place? What has all this got to do

with the peace process…? The point has been to show that, in order to be an

authentic friend, I must accept the other person's alterity [sic], which is to

say his being different from me…"

Mirvish completely misunderstands and inverts the conflict between

the Jews and Arabs in Israel. It is the immodest

and unacceptable behavior (e.g. the Gay parades) of many in the Jewish sector

that is a contributing factor to the ongoing friction here, and that helps

prevent a cultural modus vivendi with the Arab population.

There

are numerous examples that typify the immodest behavior of Jews that is an

affront to Arab sensibilities. In Furedis, an Arab coastal town north of

Hadera, Jews used to traverse the town in beach attire on their way to the sea.

Only after repeated requests by the residents of Furedis did the latter succeed

in persuading the visitors and passers-by to dress in a more respectable manner

when going through Furedis.

Another

example is the statement by a Moslem cleric from Kalkilya who pointed out the

following paradox: From the standpoint of spiritual and social values, he feels

close to the religious settlers in nearby Tzufit and Karney Shomron. He feels

close to them because he shares with them a high regard for the values of

modesty, filial piety, and prayer despite the bitterness he feels towards the

settlers with respect to political, territorial, and economic conflicts. On the

other hand, he feels a tremendous chasm between himself and the peace activists

who come to protest the "separation fence". This chasm between

traditional Arabs and the Jewish peace activists is due to the lack of

sensitivity of the activists to issues of modesty in dress and to the

inappropriate behavior between the young Jewish men and women who come to

demonstrate.

(b) Modesty and

halakhic-spiritual demands.

From

the standpoint of Jewish sources there is a national component to the value of

modesty. The Land

of Israel is described, in a metaphorical sense, as

being particularly sensitive to infringements in this area. For example, the

Torah reading that was chosen for Minha afternoon prayers of the Day of

Atonement features the forbidden relations listed in parashat Aharey Mot

and specifies the connection between these prohibitions and our tenancy in the Land of Israel.

"Thou

shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is

an abomination. And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself

therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto,

it is perversion. Defile not yourselves in any of these things; for in all

these the nations are defiled, which I cast out from before you. And the land

was defiled, therefore I did visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomited

out her inhabitants. You

therefore shall keep My statutes and My ordinances and shall not do any of

these abominations… that the land not vomit you out also, when you defile it, as it vomited out the

nation that was before you (Leviticus

18:22-25, 28).

We

are told repeatedly in the Bible that our continued existence in the Land is conditioned

upon observing God's commandments, and foremost among the mitzvot are those

that fall under the rubric of modesty and family values.

Yoske

Ahituv has written extensively (see Deot,

No. 4, Sivan 5759 and elsewhere)

on how the values of tzniut have been

transposed by Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook z"l and

his school of thought into quasi-mystical concepts such as "the Israelite

holiness," "the Israelite modesty," "the purity of the

people of Israel," and "the impurity of the non-Jewish nations".

It seems to me that Yoske Ahituv has been too quick to vilify what he terms "tzniut hardalit",

the (to his mind) over-emphasis on modesty in the nationalistic ultra-Orthodox

sector. One does not have to invoke the terminology that so annoys Ahituv in

order to point out that the Torah does make demands on us in the area of

modesty. It is clear that our living here is closely conditioned upon our

behavior in this vital area. Can one say that on the whole the Jewish

population in Israel over-emphasizes the connection in the written and oral Torah between

modesty on a national level and our rights to the Land?

The Haftarah for parashat Balak sheds light on this

subject from a different angle:

"It

has been told thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord doth require of

thee; Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to

walk modestly with thy God." (Micha 6:8)

The

last term is phrased in Hebrew hatznea lekhet, containing the word tzniut

(modesty). The Gemara (Sukka 49b) brings some surprising examples of this demand.

"'…and

walk modestly with thy God' – this refers to funeral processions and

accompanying a bride to the huppah. If we should perform these public mitzvot

in a modest fashion, then all the more so should we be modest in those

activities which are not done in public!"

Weddings

and funerals are the archetypical examples of functions that may, indeed must,

be performed in public. If we nevertheless should try to engage in them with a

modesty attitude, then a fortiori we should make every effort to see to it that

our dress, marital relationships, and general deportment and be characterized

by modesty.

If we

take the words of the prophet Michah to heart, then we may succeed in lessening

some of the friction between our Moslem neighbors and ourselves because their

culture and lifestyle do emphasize modest and family values. In parallel, we

will be strengthening the right we have to live in the Land of Israel. Then, on Bilaam's

next visit to us and his next attempt to denounce the Jews, his curse,

hopefully, will again be turned into a blessing.

Shira Leibowitz Schmidt, a

graduate of the Haifa Technion and mother of six, teaches in the Haredi College in Jerusalem.

Why Have You Beaten Your Ass? The Torah Wants to Promote

Moral Sensitivity towards all Creatures

The angel of the Lord said to

him, "Why have you beaten your ass…?" (Bamidbar 22:32)

The angel came to him to redress an ass's humiliation, and said to him: Even

though this ass lacks merit or the patriarch's covenant, I claim its redress

from you, all the more so [will I act on behalf of] the entire nation which you

seek to annihilate.

(Tanhuma Balak 10)

As for their dictum: "[To

avoid causing] suffering to animals is [an injunction to be found] in the Torah"

(Shabbat 128b) – in which they refer to its dictum – Why

have you beaten your ass (Bamidbar

22: 32) – it is set down with a

view to perfecting us so that we should not acquire moral habits of cruelty and

should not inflict pain gratuitously without any utility, but that we should

intend to be kind and merciful even with a chance animal individual, except in

the case of need – for you have the urge to eat meat (Devarim 12: 20) – for we must not kill out of cruelty or for sport.

(RaMBaM, Moreh Nevukhim

3:17, based on Pines' translation)

For there is no enchantment with Jacob, neither is there any divination

with Israel

These practices are all false

and deceptive and were means employed by the ancient idolaters to deceive the

peoples of various countries and induce them to become their followers. It is

not proper for Israelites who are highly intelligent to suffer themselves to be

deluded by such inanities or imagine that there is anything in them, as it is

said, For there is no enchantment with Jacob, neither is there any

divination with Israel (Bamidbar

23:23).

(Rambam, Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim

11: 16, Hyamson translation)

The Mishkan [Tabernacle] as Mashkon [Collateral]

On the day that Moses finished

setting up the Tabernacle (Bamidbar 7:1): This relates to that which is written: How

fair are your tents, O Jacob, your dwellings, O Israel! (24: 5)

If [he mentions] your tents,

why [mention] your dwellings, and if [he mentions] your dwellings,

Rather, how fair are your tents refers to the tents. [As for] your

dwellings –mishkenotekha – do not read mishkenotekha, but

rather mashkenotekha [your collateral]. God told Moses: "Tell Israel to make a Tabernacle. Then, if they sin, it

will be held as collateral for them." Know that this is so, for when they

sinned it is written, God heard it and was enraged; he utterly rejected Israel. He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent He had set among men (Tehillim

78:59-60) – That Tabernacle was

made for no other purpose, but only so that when they sinned they could use it

as collateral.

(Tanhuma Naso 14)

Never again did there arise in Israel

a prophet like Moses (Devarim

34:10) – But one did arise among

the nations. Which [prophet] was it? Balaam ben Be'or.

(Sifrei

Ve-Zot Ha- Brakha 357)

The bestowal of the gift of

prophecy on all human creatures was designed to impress upon the world that the

choice of Israel was no arbitrary one, but the reward for Israel's readiness and willingness to accept the

Torah. R. Yohanan's famous words to the effect that

God offered the Torah first to all the nations, one by one, but all refused,

only Israel accepting, is explained in the Gemara as the rejoinder to the

arguments of the nations: Did you ever offer us the Torah that we refused it? In

this way, later sources motivate the gift of prophecy to the Gentiles.

(Prof. E. E. Urbach, "Midrashot HaZaL al Nivi'ei Umot ha-Olam

ve-al Parashat Bilaam" passage translated by

Aryeh Newman)

An important lesson can be

learnt from this. Man's natural qualities do not determine his spiritual

status, nor do the talents bestowed on him from Above. Even the supreme gift of

prophecy cannot turn him into a saint against his will or without his own endeavors.

Man's own will is the sole factor determining whether he will use his

qualities, talents and even the gift of prophecy bestowed on him for good, or,

God forbid, misuse them, for evil. It depends solely on his own freewill to

aspire to the sainthood of a Moses or descend to the villainy of a Balaam.

(Prof. Nehama Leibowitz, z"l, Iyyunim Be-Sefer Bamidbar, Aryeh Newman, translator)