SALT | Balak 5785

********************************************
Dedicated in memory of Yitele bat Nathan Hacohen z”l
whose yahrtzeit is 11 Tammuz
By Family Rueff
********************************************

MOTZAEI

Parashat Balak tells of the curse that Bilam was to have placed upon Benei Yisrael, which resulted instead in a blessing. The most famous of Bilam's blessings opens our prayer books and has made its way onto many synagogue buildings as well as ark-coverings: "How good are your tents, Yaakov, your dwelling places, Yisrael." Our tradition, expressed in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 105b, understands these words of praise as referring to the Batei Knesset and Batei Midrash. In this context, the Gemara underscores the importance and even indispensability of these religious institutions. It claims that while all of Bilam's blessings vanished during Benei Yisrael's exile, this verse remained in force throughout the centuries. Am Yisrael survived the years of oppression, persecution and assimilation in large measure through the constant functioning of these two basic institutions, houses of prayer and study. According to the Gemara, Bilam himself recognized the power of the Batei Midrash and Batei Kenesset, even before God transformed his curse into a blessing: "From the blessing of that evil person you learn what was in his heart. He had wanted to say that they will have no Batei Kenesset or Batei Midrash, but instead said, 'How good are your tents, Yisrael…'" Employed by Moav to curse Benei Yisrael and thus eliminate the military threat they supposedly posed, Bilam sought to eliminate these "tents" and "dwelling places." Without them, Benei Yisrael would easily fall prey to their enemies.

Instead, of course, the Almighty placed into the prophet's mouth only words of praise for Am Yisrael. But what prompted the exclamation, "How good are your tents… "? In response to what did Bilam so beautifully proclaim the majesty of our religious institutions? The introductory verse to this prophecy reads, "Bilam looked up and saw Yisrael encamped tribe by tribe, and the spirit of God came upon him" (24:2). Chazal (cited by Rashi) explain that Bilam took note of Am Yisrael's privacy in and around their homes. Specifically, doors and windows were situated such that no family could look into the tents of others. Does this explanation not negate the Gemara's interpretation of the blessing as a reference to the synagogues and schools? If Benei Yisrael's residential conduct inspired this prophecy, why would Bilam proceed to speak about their public institutions of prayer and education?

The answer, quite simply, is that the observance of Jewish values in the home is what allows the synagogues and schools to accomplish their goals. If the ideals embodied and disseminated by these institutions do not find expression in the home, if they are not applied and reinforced in the family setting, then the Batei Kenesset and Batei Midrash will have little impact upon the nation. Contrasting Am Yisrael's modesty with the perversion and ideological indecency of his employers (the idol worship of Moav involved public defecation in front of a statue; that nation's sexual indulgence is manifest towards the end of Parashat Balak), Bilam acknowledged the vast difference between the two cultures. Am Yisrael's conduct in the home revealed the beauty of that which their synagogues and yeshivot represented.

By and large, Jewish parents today fulfill their obligation of teaching their children Torah by enrolling them in religious schools and involving them, on one level or another, in synagogue life. Thank God, many yeshivot and Batei Kenesset continue to grow and flourish. This emphasis, however, has perhaps led to a decreased level of importance afforded to the home in the education process. When religion is left by the front door upon returning home from school or tefila, it is not likely that the material or experience will have any lasting impression upon the youngsters. Parents must recognize that which our enemy Bilam saw as the source of Jewish strength and spirituality: the application of Torah law and values in day-to-day, domestic life.

(Based on an article by Rav Yaakov Filber)

SUNDAY

Parashat Balak concludes with the tragedy of "Ba'al Pe'or," Benei Yisrael's having succumbed to the advances of the Moavite women and participating in their pagan worship. As the final verse in the parasha reports, 24,000 people from among Benei Yisrael died as a result of the divine plague unleashed against them.

Later, in Parashat Matot (31:16), Moshe explicitly attributes this incident to none other than Bilam, of whom we had thought we had seen the last in our parasha. Actually, just a bit earlier (31:8) we read that Benei Yisrael killed Bilam during their military campaign against Midyan. Apparently, it was he, Bilam, who orchestrated the incident of Ba'al Pe'or. Where do we see Bilam doing so in the narrative?

Rashi, following Chazal, points to Bilam's introduction to his farewell speech to Balak (24:14) as the source of his involvement in the incident of Pe'or: "Let me advise you as to what this nation will do to your nation in the end of days [i.e. in the distant future]." This "advice," explain Chazal, refers to the idea of seducing Benei Yisrael's male population as a means to arouse divine wrath and thus destroy them.

The Ibn Ezra, however, finds such an explanation difficult to accept. After all, he argues, the content of this final prophecy says nothing of seduction or idolatry. It merely foresees Benei Yisrael's ultimate victory and the destruction of their enemies. The Ibn Ezra therefore looks to another verse, in an earlier prophecy of Bilam, as containing the roots of Ba'al Pe'or: "He looks upon no evil in Yaakov, and sees no falsehood among Yisrael; the Lord their God is with them, and the King's acclaim is in their midst" (23:21). Even when compelled to bless Benei Yisrael, Bilam makes a subtle reference to the possibility of overcoming them. Only when God sees no sins among Benei Yisrael does He protect them; when they violate His commandments, He removes His protective shield and leaves them vulnerable to enemy attack or plague. This "blessing" thus planted the idea in Balak's mind of luring Benei Yisrael to sin as a means of defeating them.

This reading of the Ibn Ezra opposes one approach to interpreting this verse cited by Rashi. In his second suggested reading of this verse, Rashi writes that Bilam here notes the Almighty's willingness to forgive Benei Yisrael's sins and remain with them even when they fail to obey His word. Even when they do violate the Torah, God does not look upon their sins and refuses to leave them. We can better appreciate these different readings of this verse in light of the positions taken by Rashi and Ibn Ezra as to the source of Bilam's advice to Balak. Rashi, who interpreted Bilam's final prophecy as an indication of his plan, can explain this verse as a reference to God's forgiveness of Benei Yisrael. Ibn Ezra, however, is compelled to reject Rashi's approach and read the verse as a condition: only where there are no sins to be seen does God assist His people.

We leave the reader with the following question on Rashi's interpretation: if, indeed, Bilam here speaks of God's willingness to protect the people even should they sin, why did he later suggest that Balak try defeating Benei Yisrael by luring them sin? Doesn’t his own prophecy render such efforts futile?

MONDAY

Yesterday, we looked at a verse in Bilam's second blessing to Benei Yisrael: "He looks upon no evil in Yaakov, and sees no falsehood among Yisrael; the Lord their God is with them, and the King's acclaim is in their midst" (23:21). As we saw, two possible explanations exist as to the meaning of this verse. Targum Onkelos and Ibn Ezra understand it to mean that God remains with Benei Yisrael because they refrain from wrongdoing. On account of their loyal adherence to His laws, God offers His people protection. Rashi, however, first cites this explanation and then offers an alternative approach: even when Benei Yisrael sin, God mercifully forgives their misdeeds and remains with them nonetheless.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l outlined several rules that governed Rashi's arrangement of his commentary, among them that Rashi will always present first the interpretation he deems closest to the simple meaning of the text. When he offers a second interpretation, Rashi generally cites an approach that deviates further from the simple meaning of the words.

The Rebbe applies this principle to Rashi's comments in our verse by drawing an interesting distinction between this, second prophecy of Bilam and the preceding one. Through these prophecies, Bilam indicates to Balak the two reasons why he cannot fulfill his request of placing a curse upon Benei Yisrael. First, the Almighty loves His nation and protects them from harm; no curse can thus take effect. Bilam therefore introduces his first prophecy by declaring, "How can I curse whom God has not cursed, how can I doom when God has not doomed?!" (23:8). But secondly, Benei Yisrael themselves deserve only blessings. Their faithful observance of God's laws render them worthy of His bestowal of goodness upon them. This second prophecy thus begins, "My message was to bless: when He blesses, I cannot reverse it" (23:20).

Accordingly, the Rebbe argues, Rashi prefers explaining verses in the first prophecy as related to the theme of God's love for the people and the protection from harm they enjoy as a result. In the second blessing, Rashi shows bias for interpretations focused on Benei Yisrael's own merits. In our verse, then, which appears in Bilam's second prophecy, Rashi first cites the approach of Onkelos, by which Bilam here lauds Benei Yisrael's faithful observance of the Torah and the divine assistance they consequently enjoy. This interpretation perfectly accommodates the theme of this prophecy, Benei Yisrael's self-earned right to God's blessing. Rashi naturally preferred this approach over the second, which speaks of the protection God affords His people even should they disobey Him, an expression of His unconditional love for the people and refusal to allow any curses to take effect against them. Such an explanation of the verse renders it more relevant to the earlier prophecy, which speaks specifically about this notion.

The Rebbe applies this same reasoning to Rashi's comments several verses later. Still in the second prophecy, Bilam declares, "Lo, a people that rises like a lion, leaps up like a lion… " (23:24). Targum Onkelos explains this clause as a prophetic reference to Benei Yisrael's imminent capture of Eretz Yisrael. In this instance, Rashi relegates the Targum to "second place," preferring instead the Midrashic interpretation of this verse, that it alludes to Benei Yisrael's rush to perform mitzvot as soon as they arise in the morning. How does this explanation better accommodate the straightforward meaning of the text, earning it primary mention in Rashi's commentary? In light of the analysis developed by the Rebbe, the answer becomes clear. Since this prophecy focuses on Benei Yisrael's having earned the right to divine blessing, Rashi prefers an interpretation related to their performance of mitzvot, rather than one that speaks of their conquest of Eretz Yisrael. According to the Midrashic approach to the verse, it fits perfectly into Bilam's discussion of the nation's many merits, on account of which they are to be only blessed, rather than cursed.

For "homework": apply this analysis to Bilam's third prophecy in order to identify its nature and theme. Please send comments to [email protected].

TUESDAY

In his first blessing to Benei Yisrael, Bilam exclaims, "How can I curse whom God has not cursed, how can I doom when God has not doomed?!" (23:8). Bilam here acknowledges the futility of attempting to inflict harm through superstition and sorcery, since the Almighty enjoys full "veto power" over any curse.

This basic tenet, that magic and hocus-pocus cannot overrule the will of the Almighty, raises a question concerning the prohibition against cursing another member of Benei Yisrael (based on Vayikra 19:14; see Rashi there). If a curse is ultimately meaningless, then why did the Torah issue such a prohibition, one punishable by lashes (if God's Name is invoked in the curse)?

The Sefer Ha-chinukh (231) claims that although we do not understand the efficacy of curses, they have some impact upon the targeted individual and are hence forbidden. To reconcile this position with Bilam's aforementioned exclamation, we may perhaps suggest that Bilam did not negate the effect of curses altogether. Rather, he was commissioned to place a very specific curse on Benei Yisrael: that they fall in battle against Balak. Bilam understood that the Almighty wants His nation to flourish, not suffer defeat. He himself has thus no power to issue a curse of military defeat upon Benei Yisrael. This is not to say, however, that his curse would yield no effect at all.

The Chinukh proceeds to cite a different approach from the Rambam in his Sefer Ha-mitzvot: this prohibition against cursing other Jews serves to distance one from anger and feelings of revenge. Although a verbal curse yields no magical effect, it does demonstrate a lack of good manners and upright behavior. In his Mishneh Torah, the Rambam seemingly applies this principle only with a slightly different point of focus. In Hilkhot Sanhedrin 26:1, the Rambam writes, "It appears to me that one who curses a minor who is ashamed receives lashes." Generally, when the Rambam writes, "It appears to me… " he presents a halakha that he considers less than obvious. Now if a curse actually inflicted physical harm upon its subject, then we would have little reason to even entertain the possibility of a distinction between children and adults. Age is of no consideration whatsoever when it comes to physical harm. Apparently, the Rambam understood the prohibition as focused on the humiliation suffered by the subject of a curse. Therefore, one could have viewed the prohibition as non-applicable to small children, who would perhaps be more likely to ignore verbal insults against them. The Rambam therefore clarified that youngsters, too, would suffer emotional harm as a result of a curse, and the prohibition thus applies to them, as well. (This explanation of this passage in the Rambam appears to emerge from the Kesef Mishneh's comments on this halakha.)

Thus, whereas the Sefer Ha-chinukh believes that a curse does indeed have some effect upon its subject, the Rambam views the prohibition as related to the emotional scars potentially left by a curse.

A third view is posited by the Or Ha-chayim, in his comments on the verse with which we opened our discussion. He maintains that a curse will have no effect whatsoever on tzadikim, those who are not at all deserving of punishment. It may, however, adversely affect one who deserves punishment but has been the beneficiary of divine compassion and thus spared from retribution.

(Based primarily on Rav Binyamin Tabory's column in Shabbat Be-Shabbato, Shabbat Parashat Balak, 5760.)

WEDNESDAY

Two days ago, we encountered the following verse from Bilam's second blessing to Am Yisrael: "Lo, a people that rises like a lion, leaps up like a lion… " (23:24). As we saw, Rashi cites two explanations for the metaphor of the lion in this context. First, Rashi presents the Midrash's approach, that Bilam here lauds Benei Yisrael's fervent and enthusiastic observance of mitzvot: "When they arise from their sleep in the morning, they are strong as a lion in their grabbing of mitzvot: to wear tzitzit, to recite shema, and to lay tefillin." Targum Onkelos, by contrast, presents an interpretation that appears more in line with the straightforward reading of the verse, as a description of the nation's successful conquest of Eretz Yisrael.

In truth, these two explanations may be closer to one another than may at first appear. In Chazal's view, Benei Yisrael's strength lies primarily in its spiritual might, in its persistent and tireless pursuit of Torah and mitzvot. Only this spiritual power enables our nation to exert military strength for its survival.

The relationship between "peshat" (the straightforward meaning) and "derash" (the homiletic approach) in this verse becomes clearer in light of a passage in Masekhet Ta'anit (20). The Gemara asserts that "the curse with which Achiya Ha-shiloni cursed Yisrael was better than the blessing with which the wicked Bilam cursed them." The Gemara explains that in Melakhim I 14:15, the prophet Achiya Ha-shiloni, in forewarning the destruction of the kingdom of Yeravam Ben Nevat, declares, "God will strike Yisrael until it sways like a reed in water." Whereas Achiya likens Benei Yisrael to a reed, Bilam, in his blessing, compares them to a cedar tree (24:6). Although reeds are easily battered by stormy weather, not even the strongest winds can uproot it; it forever remains firmly attached in the ground. By contrast, the powerful cedar trees can withstand harsh conditions; rain and wind generally have no effect on the robust cedar. However, says the Gemara, "when a southern wind blows, it uproots it and casts it down on its face." Despite the cedar's ability to withstand gusty winds, it has one weakness that renders it vulnerable to the southern wind, which can destroy it.

Reeds, which were generally used as pens in the ancient world, symbolize scholarship and wisdom, the world of the spirit. Cedars, used in the construction of strong buildings, represent the external realm of the physical. Even when blessing Am Yisrael, Bilam saw only the nation's external qualities, its outward demonstration of force and prowess. This form of power is effective but to a limit: ultimately, the enemies capitalize on the mighty nation's weakness and destroy it. The Jewish prophet, however, recognizes Benei Yisrael's inner strength even when foreseeing their downfall. Thus, although the reed is windswept and beaten, its roots remain strong and firm. Am Yisrael has suffered continual beatings and oppression at the hands of the changing winds of history, but has never been uprooted. Its roots, the eternal wisdom of the Torah, have ensured its continuity and improbable survival.

Thus, both Targum Onkelos and the Midrash interpret the lion metaphor correctly. Bilam spoke of Benei Yisrael's impressive military achievement in their conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Chazal, however, read into his prophecy a little deeper. Am Yisrael's strength ultimately flows from its spiritual wellsprings, the unending supply of Torah and mitzvot. Only these spiritual elements have formed the "lion" of Benei Yisrael, its eternal strength and resilience, which have allowed it to prevail over the centuries of oppression and overcome the formidable obstacle of time.

(Based on an article by Rav Yaakov Ariel)

THURSDAY

Bilam prefaces his second blessing to Benei Yisrael as follows: "Rise, Balak, and listen, give ear to me, the son of Tzipor!" The Midrash adds that Bilam here admonished Balak, "You have no right to sit as the Almighty's words are recited!"

This verse, innocuous as it may seem, arose in an interesting and very relevant halakhic discussion concerning the recitation of kaddish. The Rema, in Orach Chayim 56, writes that one must stand during kaddish. The Magen Avraham cites as the source of this halakha a comment in the Talmud Yerushalmi, which derives this obligation from Shoftim, chapter 3. There Ehud Ben Geira, the "shofet" (judge) at the time, tricks Eglon, the king of Moav who then oppressed Benei Yisrael, by telling him that he carries the "word of God." Eglon rose out of respect for the anticipated prophecy, at which point Ehud easily thrust his sword into the corpulent king's belly. In any event, the Yerushalmi understood Ehud's having bid the king to rise as indicating a requirement to stand for "the word of God," which includes kaddish, as well. The Magen Avraham proceeds to mention that the Maharil did not make a point of standing for kaddish, unless he had been standing already when the recitation of kaddish began. The Ar"i, adds the Magen Avraham, is quoted as having denied the authenticity of the text of the aforementioned passage in the Yerushalmi.

This final point, of the Arizal's rejection of the accepted text of this passage in the Yerushalmi, sparked a good deal of discussion among the Acharonim. To which part of this passage did the Ar"i refer? The Magen Avraham himself, and others, claim that the Ar"i did not actually deny the halakha itself. He merely rejected the Yerushalmi's proof as it appears in our texts. After all, the verses in Sefer Shoftim make no indication of Ehud's having instructed Eglon to rise. Therefore, while the Ar"i accepted the Yerushalmi's having required standing during kaddish, he denied the legitimacy of the source according to the prevalent text of the Yerushalmi.

So, how should the Yerushalmi be read? What is the correct text?

The Magen Avraham cites the Yonat Elem as suggesting a very slight emendation of the text, essentially retaining the source mentioned in the prevalent version. True, Ehud never bid the Moavite king to stand; however, the very fact that Eglon, a wicked, gentile king, stood out of respect for God's word proves that we, Am Yisrael, must certainly do so.

Rav Shlomo Kluger (in "Shenot Chayim"), however, introduces into the Yerushalmi our verse from Parashat Balak. He suggests that the original text of the Yerushalmi cited Bilam's order to Balak to stand before the delivery of his prophecy as the source for standing for kaddish. If this is true, we may speculate that the copy-editors' confusion arose from the fact that in both incidents, the one asked to stand was a king of Moav (Balak and Eglon).

Rav Yehuda Assad, in "Yehuda Ya'aleh" (vol. 1, Orach Chayim 11), rejects this proof from our verse in Parashat Balak. The Midrash, cited by Rashi, clearly indicates that Bilam ordered Balak to stand not out of concern for the Almighty's honor, but rather to "annoy" Balak. Balak, having already seen Bilam compelled to bless Benei Yisrael instead of cursing them, began mocking Bilam for his inability to act on his own. In response, Bilam sought to "return the favor" and cause discomfort to Balak. He therefore condescendingly ordered him to stand for his prophecy. This explains why only here Bilam issues such an order; he begins none of his other monologues with an instruction for his audience to rise. If so, argues Rav Assad, we can bring no proof from this incident that one must stand during kaddish, as respect and honor for God's word did not prompt this order.

Practically, while Sefaradim are generally lenient in this regard and allow sitting during kaddish, Ashkenazim by and large adopt the stringent ruling of the Rema. However, even among Ashkenazic communities there are those who allow sitting during kaddish unless one was standing already.

It hopefully goes without saying that talking during kaddish (and most other parts of tefila) is strictly forbidden.

FRIDAY

When Balak and Bilam make their first attempt to place a curse on Benei Yisrael, Balak took Bilam to place from where they could see only "a portion of the people" (22:40). The Kotzker Rebbe explains Balak's rationale in this regard: one can find faults only with a portion of Benei Yisrael. As even Balak and Bilam knew, the possibility of placing a curse upon Benei Yisrael rests in the ability to isolate a given portion of the nation. The people in its entirety, however, is inherently pure, beyond the grasp of Bilam's efforts.

Along similar lines, some have understood "ketzei ha-am" ("a portion of the people") as a specific reference to the "eirev rav," the foreigners who joined Benei Yisrael upon their departure from Egypt. The Midrash blames this group for precipitating the incident of the golden calf as well as other infamous chapters in the nation's journey through the wilderness. Balak and Bilam hoped that by seeing only a portion of Benei Yisrael, and specifically a portion experienced in iniquity, they would succeed in their quest to curse the perceived foes.

Bilam's blessing contains God's response to this effort: "I see them from the mountain tops, gaze on them from the heights… " Rashi explains this as a reference to Am Yisrael's origins: the sacred patriarchs and matriarchs, who forged the spiritual backbone of the nation (perhaps that even the "eirev rav" shared??). The attempt to focus on a mere segment of the people failed; Bilam was compelled to consider the common denominator of all sectors within Benei Yisrael's population: its inherent, sacred quality.

Balak then tries again. This time, he emphasizes, "Come with me to another place from which you can see them - you will see only a portion of them; you will not see all of them - and curse them from there" (23:13). Balak hopes that Bilam could this time make a point of isolating a portion of the nation for his purposes. Needless to say, this attempt failed, as well.

This principle, that all segments of the Jewish people ultimately belong to a single, organic whole, transcends centuries and millennia. Not only does every Jew share the same destiny and responsibilities as another Jew at the opposite end of the earth and of an entirely different background and culture, so does he share this commonality with all Jews past and present. This Sunday begins the three-week period of mourning over the exile and destruction of the Beit Ha-mikdash. However unfortunate the necessity for this observance, it underscores the remarkable, intergenerational quality of Benei Yisrael. The entity known as the Jewish people has risen above time; we conduct a collective lamentation for events that transpired millennia ago. The contemporary struggle for Eretz Yisrael further emphasizes this point: Am Yisrael remains determined to fight for its right to a land from which it was exiled centuries ago.

Balak and subsequent enemies have tried, one way or another, to isolate one group or one generation from the indivisible entity of Am Yisrael. Our survival has been made possible, ironically enough, by our stubborn adherence to a dictum formulated by Bilam himself: "There is a people that dwells apart, not reckoned among the nations" (23:9).

***********************************************
Our SALT Archives house decades of divrei Torah. Click here.
More recent SALTs can be found by searching for SALT in our Advanced Search box, along with the parasha name.
***********************************************