Bilam’s Curse

By On · Add Comment

Bilam was a prophet who had the abilities and potential to match Moshe, but did not choose to be righteous. He was hired by Balak to curse the Jews. He was sought out because his abilities were famous. But he had an additional ability – he could identify a certain moment of the day in which God is angry.

How are we to understand this?

The Midrash teaches that originally, God wanted to create the world through a prism of strict justice – evil would be instantly punished, and good would be instantly rewarded. But it was found that existence would be untenable this way, and would never last. It was decided that an equal amount of mercy would be added to creation, and have the two balance into equilibrium.

What Bilam could identify was the moment of indignance at the literal “injustice” of existence not being held to account.

Tosfos in Brachos wonders how much someone could really manage to say in this brief and transitory moment, and answers that he could gaze at his targets and say “כלם” – “Destroy them”.

The Maharal points out how כלם is the reverse anagram of מלך – king, a critical function in Judaism.

In Devarim, Moshe’s final speech to the people, he tells them the mitzva of appointing a king – שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ – Appoint a king over yourselves (17:15). The function of the king is a hierarchy that organises and implements a structure. He perfects the system.

In the book of Shmuel, the prophet is approached and asked for a king “like the tribes and nations have”, and they are rebuked. But weren’t they correct; was it not one of things Moshe told them?

The Maharal explains that מלך is the initial letters of מח, לב, כבד – brain, heart, liver. These are identified as metaphors for the procedure and development of action. There is a thought, a feeling, and an instinct. The order is critical – the brain, the intellect has to run the system, and everything follows suit. This is the charge of every Jew – to become a master of the self – מלך – like the actual king, to perfect the structure.

What the Jews asked Shmuel was not for this king – they wanted a king “like the tribes and nations have”. This is not the kingdom function that is critical to the Jews fundamental makeup.

What Bilam tried to do was invert this capacity – he wanted to curse the Jews “כלם” – the reverse of מח, לב, כבד, and the order would degenerate into כבד, לב, מח – where the instinct is dominant, and intellect and soul are enslaved to it – the antithesis of the Jews charge, and truly the ultimate curse.

Brothers

By On · Add Comment

(וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ’ (דברים יט:יט

‘And you shall do to him like he plotted to do to his brother’.

 Rashi explains this pasuk by saying ‘The pasuk says ‘like he plotted’ and not if he actually did [to his brother].’ The Mishna in Makos 5b learns this דין from the word ‘brother’ since ‘brotherhood’ only refers to live siblings.

The Ritva asks, ‘When it talks about יבום in דברים כ’ה:ז we find a reference to brotherhood despite the brother having deceased, thus contradicting the Mishna above. For example, despite their tragic death, Nadav and Avihu are also referred to as ‘brothers’.

 R’ Ezriel Hildesheimer answers with a most wonderful idea. He explains the difference between a blood brother and a friendship style brother. A blood brother will remain a brother even after he has deceased, hence the relevance of Yibum where the pasuk refers to them as brothers. Nadav, Avihu, Mishael and Elitzafon were blood cousins which hold the same importance, in their case only, as brothers. However, here we are discussing witnesses where they may not have any blood relativity at all. In this pasuk, the reason they are addressed as brothers is simply because they are ‘brothers in arms,’ I.e. they are both keeping the mitzvos. As is proven in Bava Kama 88a, ‘A Canaanite servant is a brother to us in mitzvos.’

This question over whether it is truly a blood brother or just a brother through mitzvos is only relevant if the ‘brother’ is still alive. We have already established that it refers to ‘brothers in mitzvos.’  However, once they are deceased they are free from the mitzvos so there is nothing binding them as brothers.

In conclusion, the posuk is cryptically trying to show us that, indeed, the victim in question is still alive and was not affected / killed by the ‘plot’ against him.

Good Shabbos

Personal agendas

By On · Add Comment

אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לָתוּר אֶת הָאָרֶץ וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן נוּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – These are the names of the men Moses sent to scout the Land, and Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun, Joshua. (13:16)

The incident of the Meraglim occured on their return from Canaan on the 9th of Av, and was the precursor for all Jewish tragedies on that day, as the Gemara in Taanis (29a) explains that when the Jews began to cry at the “reports”, Hashem pledged “Since you cried for no reason, I will designate this day as a day of crying for all generations”. All tragedies that occured on 9th Av are resultant from this episode.

Moshe sensed that they would return bearing a bad report, and changed his disciple Hoshea’s name to Yehoshua, and prated for him.

The Zohar reveals to us that what caused the Meraglim (who were the nesi’im, princes of their respective Tribes) to sin, was their fear of losing their positions of influence and leadership on entry into Israel. The perceived threat to their authority distorted their vision of Israel, and everything they saw was misinterpreted and fell under the shadow of their negativity.

This Zohar leads us to a difficult question. We read in Parshas Behaloscha that when Eldad and Medad started prophesying, Yehoshua exclaimed that they should be imprisoned – he was distraught at the mere suggestion that he was worthy enough of being the leader.
Read Full Dvar Torah →

What Goes Around…

By On · Add Comment

The Pasuk says ” ….עֵד הַגַּל הַזֶּה – This pile (of stones) shall be a witness…”(31:52)

Many Midrashim mention that Yaakov thrust a sword into the wall as a second witness. The Da’as Zkeinim mentions this and then points out that Bilam ben Be’or’s downfall was with these two, a wall and a sword. Why is this relevant?

He quotes a Gemara in Sanhedrin (105.) that “תנא הוא בעור הוא כושן רשעתים הוא לבן הארמי – Be’or is the same person as Lavan the Aramean and Kushan Reshasaim (an evil king in judges)”, both of whom were mockers and scoffers who caused great difficulties for the Jews. Bilam was Lavan’s son.

Bilam was damaged by a wall, (Numbers 22:25) as it says “וַתִּלְחַץ אֶת-רֶגֶל בִּלְעָם, אֶל-הַקִּיר – and his foot was crushed against the wall”, and killed by the sword (ibid. 31:8) “וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב – also Bilam son of Be’or was slain by the sword”.

There is a terrifying story in the Gemara quoted by Rashi and Tosfos (Taanis 8.) that a young boy found a girl who’d fallen into a deep pit, and promised to rescue her on the condition that she marry him. She consented, and they made the pit she was in and a passing animal witnesses. He rescued her and they went their separate ways, and years later he married another woman, who bore him two sons. Unfortunately, one died falling into a pit, and another was killed by this animal. The woman asked why these bizarre misfortunes had befallen them, and he remembered the witnesses and his vow. His wife told him to divorce her and find this girl, which he did.

This is similar to the case of Bilam in that the witnesses came back to “remind” them of their duties, a clear demonstration of measure for measure.

Perhaps we can suggest an additional point to ponder: when Yakov entered Lavan’s house, he clearly did not have sons, as otherwise why would he send his daughters to tend the sheep, surely a man’s job? (We see this too by Yisro’s daughters). Yet in this week’s Sedra he clearly has sons (31:1). Lavan only had daughters until the blessing that Yakov brought with him gave him sons, and his own son broke his vow that nothing should befall his daughters.

These are a fulfilment of the Pasuk “יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ – The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death”.