“Now Bil’am saw . . . and he saw Israel
dwelling by their tribes, and there came upon him the spirit of God.”
Not as he saw them at first, with
the intention of casting upon them ‘an evil eye’, but with love which he
attained at that moment . . . and therefore is it written “there came upon
him the spirit of God” – the Holy Spirit rested upon him out of love and
affection.”
(Haamek Davar, Bemidbar 24:1)
Who is
Bil’am in the tradition of generations?
“There
arose no further prophet in Israel like Moshe” – in Israel
there arose not, but among the nations there arose one. And who was that?
Bil’am ben Be’or, but there is a difference between the prophecy of Moshe and
that of Bil’am ben Be’or; Moshe knew not who was speaking to him, and Bil’am
knew who was talking to him, as is written, “Utters the hearer of Godly
sayings”; Moshe knew not when He spoke with him, whereas Bil’am knew when
He spoke with him, as is written, “who knows the knowledge of the
Most-High”; Moshe spoke with Him only when standing, as is written, “Now
you stand here with Me,” whereas Bil’am spoke with Him while prostrate, as is written, “envisioning
a vision of Shaddai, bowed, but with eyes uncovered.” To what may this be
compared? To the cook of a king who knows how much the king spends on his
table.
(Yalkut Shimoni, Devarim
Chap. 35, 961)
Said Rabbi Elazar Hakapar: Bil’am looked out and saw
that there will be a man, born of woman, who will some day arise and attempt to
set himself up as a divinity, and to lead the entire world astray. Therefore
was power given to the voice of Bil’am so that he would be heard by all the
nations of the world, and so he said: “Be careful not to go astray after that
man (Jesus), as is written, “No man is God, that he should lie,” and if
he claims to be a God, he is lying and he is destined to mislead and say that
he is disappearing but will come in time (i.e., that he is the messiah of the
end of days) “Should he say and not do so?”
(From an
uncensored version of a midrash – quoted by Y. Leibowitz in Seven Years of
Discussions of the Weekly Parasha)
Menachem Klein
Parashat Balak presents us with a subject which has
accompanied the Jewish people from its very inception – its relations with the
nations of the world. This is
expressed in two ways. First, in the words employed by Scripture to describe
the way in which Bil’am sees Israel. The second is the rich and variegated
treasure of commentary from which we learn how different Jewish commentators
saw Bil’am and, through him, the nations of the world.
The image of Bil’am, as it appears in a plain
reading of the text, is diametrically opposed to the image presented by the
commentaries. The very phenomenon called Bil’am is not negative, and the term
‘the wicked’ is not attached to Bil’am’s name by the Torah.
The Torah records a dialogue which God conducts with
Bil’am without Israel’s knowledge.
The negotiations between God and Bil’am are direct, without Israel’s awareness.
God communicated directly with the nations by means of a prophet of their own.
Secondly, Bil’am possesses magical powers. Bil’am
can cause supernatural forces to act against the Jewish nations, despite God’s
desire for Israel’s well-being.
God does not act in His
region, the upper spheres, to thwart Bil’am’s magical plans. God decides to act
in order to prevent Bil’am from setting out for Moab. Does this imply that the
moment that Bil’am opens his mouth, God will have to comply? Is his sorcery so
powerful? Whoever believes in practical magic -- in the harnessing of
supernatural forced for a positive goal -- must also accept, in principle, the belief in such influence for negative goals. In
this respect there is at least once difficult problem. The question becomes
even sharper in light of the fact that Bil’am was a gentile, yet his speech
held such great power.
Thirdly, there is the problem of prophecy of a
gentile who is considered a true prophet.
Bil’am was not a false prophet, and therefore it was important for God that he voice positive
declarations. Certain passages
from Bil’am’s blessing have, through the generations, become sources in which
we Jews take pride, incorporating them into our liturgy.
God negotiates with Bil’am, instead of giving a direct
order. Even more puzzling – a
plain reading of the text indicates that during the negotiations, God seems to
change his mind, taking an equivocal position. This is a common human
phenomenon, but attributing it to God raises a theological problem which is
addressed by all the commentators.
A fifth problem – Bil’am
is privileged to see and hear an animal speak. No Jewish prophet had ever merited such a marvel. This was no ordinary beast, but one
which had seen the angel of God three times, whereas Bil’am saw him not at all.
And finally, as implied from
the words of the angel to Bil’am, if he had to choose between Bil’am’s life and
that of the ass, he would have chosen the latter. The animal is highly
regarded. And this noble animal
was the beast upon which Bil’am rode all his life!
Bil’am, as described in
the Bible, presents a difficult exegetical problem. The strategy chosen by all Jewish commentators since Chazal
to cope with the problem was quite simple: Portray Bil’am in a totally negative
light. Bil’am represents for them the desire of the nations and their image in
the eyes of the Jewish people.
Bil’am’s image is colored
in disparaging terms at every turn of the narrative. He is termed ‘sorcerer’,
denoting inferiority as compared with the term ‘prophet’ reserved for the
prophets of Israel. God is revealed to him only by chance or through impure
means. Bil’am is an avaricious and honor-pursuing man who is, for money,
willing to hurt Israel. Bil’am is drawn as one who set out joyously, as one who
hated the Israeli people and planned to curse them. Bil’am is depicted as one
who performs sodomy with his donkey.
And, finally, Scripture
relates how Bil’am and Balak leave each other and go their separate ways. Bil’am fulfilled God’s instructions and
did not deceive Balak. Bil’am warned Balak that he should say only that which
“God would place in his mouth.”
Scripture’s portrait of
Bil’am is generally positive. But our classic commentaries find this
evaluation difficult to accept. Therefore it stresses that it was Bil’am who
advised Balak to wound Israel through the daughters of Moav. The images of the
daughters of the nations and their fathers serves a very important homiletic
function, alongside Israel’s Achilles heel -- it’s attraction to the daughters of the gentile. In this
way, Bil’am is transformed from a complex character possessing not a few
positive aspects into a one-dimensional figure. Not only are Bil’am’s character
and personality presented simplistically – so is his relation with God. God and
the angel He sent to block Bil’am’s path were interpreted throughout the
generations as protecting the
Jewish people, and not as conducting ongoing dialogue. God’s dialogue with
Bil’am was intended only to guard over the Jewish people, and to teach him how
positive and noble is this people.
This hermeneutic tendency
finds exaggerated expression today as Bil’am’s words are applied to current
events: “Here, a people, alone-in-security it dwells, among the nations it
does not need to come-to-reckoning.”
According to this approach, the isolation of the Israelite nation is
a divine command or a description of an existential condition. The Israelite
nation is alone, and needs not reckon with the nations. ‘It matters not what
the goyim will say’ has become a religious principle. Today this approach is heard
not only from religious non-Zionists Jews, but also from Zionist religious
circles. It is directed primarily against those who raise considerations of
international policy, or argue in the name of international public opinion. Of
course, this approach was not dominant when the U.N. supported the partition
plan, and when international
public opinion was shocked at the expulsion of the ship “Exodus” and
supported the establishment of the State of Israel as reparation for the
horrors of the Shoah. This new interpretation was heard only from 1967 in
relation to Israeli withdrawal or curbing Israeli actions. The position that
‘we need not reckon with the goyim’ and that the Jewish people exists in
isolation contradicts a basic Zionist principle. The principle states that
Zionism means the return of the Jewish people to international history as an
active participant in the political arena. One cannot be active in the political arena without relating to – and reckoning with
--other forces active in that arena.
In contrast to the
accepted religious nationalist interpretation, the words of Bil’am can be
understood as supporting the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. “A
nation alone-in-security” does not mean a people cut off and isolated , but
rather one having the right to self-determination, one who is counted as part
of the nations, but one standing in its own right. In the words of the midrash
and Rashi, “A nation
alone-in-security” – -they are not counted along with the others.” The continuation of the passage is also
explained by Rashi, following the midrash, in a totally different direction
than that which is popular today.
In our times, “among the nations it does not need to
come-to-reckoning” means “does not take their opinion into consideration,”
“he does whatever he thinks is right.”
But Rashi and the midrash read the text completely differently. “An
alternative explanation, when they (Israel) are happy, no other nation is happy
with them . . . but when the nations have it good, they (Israel)
eat with every one of them (the nations) and they (Israel) are not charged.
This is the meaning of , “among the nations it does not need to
come-to-reckoning.” The relation with the nations is not negative. The
dichotomy of “good for the nations = bad for the Jews” is not acceptable to the
Midrash and Rashi. They offer a different ideal – “Good for the nations = good
for Israel.” True, the situation
is not ideal. “Joy for Israel” is not “Joy for the nations.” But the simplistic
converse is not acceptable to our Sages and Rashi. ‘Good for the goyim’ is not bad for Israel.
Dr
Menachem Klein, a member of the editorial board of Shabbat Shalom, teaches in
the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University)
Readers reactions to “Sanctity And Normalization –
Are they compatible”? (Sh.Sh. Bamidbar)
As
on every Shabbat, I studied your pamphlet, and, as usual, I enjoyed most of
what I read.
I
liked what Shammai Leibovitz had to say (“Sanctity and Normalization – Are They
Compatible?”), but it seems to me that the two last passages are in need of
emendation. I will be thankful if you permit me space for my version.
One
must beware of turning personal, human drives, such as nationalism, statehood,
democracy, patriotism, yearning for peace, etc., into sacraments.” There is
real danger that viewing the world through the lenses of holiness will turn
activity in these fields into an obsession directed by zealotry (religious or
anti-religious) which transforms an issue into life’s overriding issue.
In
this context it would be well to remember that peaceful relations with our
neighbors can contribute to normalization of life. On the one hand, we must
make every possible effort to further such relations On the other hand, we must beware of falling into the trap
of dangerous illusions. If we transform concepts such as love of the Land,
pursuit of peace, etc., into exclusive values, relating to them as did Nadav
and Avihu to the concept of the Mishkan and the offerings, we will find ourselves
quickly consumed in “an eish zara which He did not
command them.”
Respectfully,
Dina Goldberg
Regarding
Nadav and Avihu it is written, “and sons they had not.” From
this, Shammai Leibovitz reaches a very novel and immediate conclusion – that
instead of a “normal” life of raising children, the sons of Aharon engaged in
religious zeal. The
implication is clear: The “North
Tel-Aviv” longing for a normal life is preferable to an approach which
considers love of the Land, etc., as holy.
One
reads and wonders: Is there no limit to political hermeneutics! Regarding
Korach and his assembly -- who, according to S.L., sinned the very same sin
when they sought God passionately, without limits -- we read the exact opposite, “And the sons of
Korach did not die.” It would
seem that they did love ‘normal life’ . . .
The
written facts which contradict his words do not brother the darshan. Political realities also seem to have no influence
on his conclusions. Otherwise, how to understand his words said following all
the difficulties in our talks with the Palestinians, -- “that we can attain
normality (“normal relations with our neighbors”) soon.”
It
is proper that words of Torah be sealed with the seal of The Holy One, Blessed
Be He – “The Truth” ,
or, in our vernacular, “intellectual honesty.”
Prof. Gavriel Haim Cohen
Yerushalayim
To the
Editorial Board of Shabbat Shalom, Shalom!
Re:
“Sanctity and Normalization – Are the Two Compatible?”
Sometimes
I read in your publication enlightening words of Torah, sometimes thoughts
which arouse protest, such as in Issue 188. Shammai Leibovitz’s article
“Sanctity and Normalization – Are the Two Compatible?” which ‘opens with praise
but concludes with disgrace.’
‘Opens
with praise’ – his relating “and sons they had not” to an
outburst of excessive holiness, beyond the norm, on the part of Nadav and
Avihu; the conclusion that one must strive for holiness within a normal
life – familial, political, economical. So far, so good – even though (or
perhaps because) he teaches us nothing new; our ancients (“derech eretz – a normal life – preceded Torah”) and our latter day scholars
already taught the same.
And
the ‘disgrace’? Where does the writer cross the red line? When he reaches the
far-fetched conclusion that “One must beware of turning personal, human drives,
such as nationalism, statehood, patriotism, etc., into sacraments”. The first question is: The point of
departure is family life. Are we to divest it of holiness, leaving it ‘normal’? If not, why is it any different in principle from other
areas of life – political and economic?
And the second question: Were Moshe (as in the old
joke) to have brought us to Canada, or Herzl would have settled us in Uganda,
perhaps then we could have conducted a normal state, without kedusha. But
what can we do? Our Eretz Yisrael is presented in all of Scripture and in the
words of our sages as a land stamped by the Creator with the seal of kedusha. This
obligates us to move in many directions – but certainly not towards
conventional normality.
There
is logic to the author’s thoughts regarding the danger that the concern with kedusha can transform political activity into an obsession
directed by religious zealousness. But this is not the prefered conclusion. The
preferred conclusion is: Even in sacred matters, one must employ common sense,
one must balance between different
considerations.
As
to what is that desired balance – this is subject to controversy. But not so kedusha itself.
Dr.
Menachem Ben-Yashar
Masuoth
Yitzhak
Due to
lack of space, Shammai Leibowitz’ response to the readers’ reactions will be
published in the next edition of Shabbat Shalom.
Editorial Board: Pinchas
Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem
Klein
Translation: Kadish
Goldberg
This weekly publication was
made possible by:
The New Israel Fund
The Moriah Fund
To our readers:
We will be happy to have you actively
participate in “Shabbat Shalom” by:
·
Letters to the
editor
·
Publication of
Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)
· Membership in Oz V’Shalom – Netivot Shalom and payment of dues.
If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.
1 Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $1000
1 English edition distributed via email $ 100
Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.
Tax-exempt contributions to OzveShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or through P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.
Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom.
New Israel Fund, POB 53410, Jerusalem 91534 (Please include Israeli address and telephone number)
New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA
New Israel Fund of Canada, 801 Eglinton Ave. West, Suite #401, Toronto, Ontario M5N 1E3 Canada
New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, United Kingdom
P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.
9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel’s society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians
Our activities are funded by donations, volunteer efforts and one part time employee.