Download בס"ד - Sde Eliyahu

epar61037.doc
"And G-d opened the mouth of the donkey" [Bamidbar 22:28].
PARASHAT HASHAVUA

‫" בס"ד‬However, you will only say what I tell you" [22:35].
The issue of freedom of expression was once again raised in the
Supreme Court about a week ago. And the "High Priest" sitting at the
head of the court made his pronouncement: "Freedom of expression
takes precedence over curtailing religious feeling" (as quoted in the
press - the same is true for the other quotes below).
The case involved a request for an injunction by the residents of
a religious town (Mitzpeh Keramim, in the Binyamin area) who were
photographed for television. They had not given permission to
broadcast the program on Shabbat, since they did not realize when it
was scheduled. The "high governor" of the court rejected the request
for an injunction, because in comparing the two values, "the aspect of
freedom of expression takes precedence unless the harm to religious
feeling is immediate and serious... beyond the limits of tolerance of
Israeli society."
For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that his honor agrees
that if the subjects make an explicit condition that the film should not
be screened on Shabbat this condition should not be violated.
(Evidently, agreements are more important than feelings, since "the
entire land is filled with justice" [in the words of the learned judge],
and there is no room left for feelings.)
In all honesty, from the point of view of strict halacha, it may well
be that there is no obligation for one who is being filmed to protest
loudly that his kippa or her kerchief should not be shown on the
screen on Shabbat. I have not come across any detailed and wellreasoned halachic discussions of this matter. The prohibition of
"helping another to commit a sin" (which seems to be the relevant
issue, as far as I can tell) is not so simple in the modern world of
mutual religious-secular existence. Another issue, that of
"desecration of G-d's name," can also change depending on
circumstance such as time, place, and expectations of the
surroundings. Some other distinctions can be made, such as:
whether this is the first showing of the film or a replay; the difference
between an interviewer and one who is being interviewed; the
difference between the main participant of a show and one who
makes an incidental appearance; and possibly a difference between
a newscast and a talk show.
I have no doubt that any serious halachic ruling on this matter will
be based in a large measure on issues of "halachic policy" (there
really is such a thing!), often called "a Torah opinion" (there really is
such a thing!). Thus, it is no surprise that both the plaintiffs and the
attorney general's office were able to bring rabbinical opinions of
roughly equivalent stature to bolster their sides of the case.
Thus, I am really not upset about the halachic issue as such,
because "the world is not concerned only with halacha." What does
upset me greatly are the declarations of principle which fan the fires
of "judicial activism." After the statement that freedom of expression
takes precedence over religious feeling (and this was accepted as an
axiom by the judges), Barak made a very strange pronouncement: "If
the injunction is accepted, this will lead to the end of television
broadcasting on Shabbat... There is a good chance that television on
Shabbat will be turned off, and radio will soon follow suit."
And here we have the truth that was so well hidden. "T-h-e-y a-re a-f-r-a-i-d!" The Supreme Court, with its presidential style of rule,
has accepted a role as an enemy of the religious community, and it
thus feels threatened. At the very least, this is the way the "High
Priest" of the court feels. As if to say, "If we give these religious
people a finger they will demand the whole hand, and who can tell
where this will lead?"
Since this week's Torah portion is Balak, it is a simple matter to
look at Bilam and his curses from the point of view of freedom of
expression. Even the great sorcerer has his limits, as he was
commanded by the angel in the incident of the donkey: "However,
you will say what I tell you" [22:35].
PARASHA : BALAK
Date : 16 Tammuz 5761, 7/7/2001
“The Best of Parashat HaShavuah” Articles taken from list
subscriptions on the internet, edited, reformatted and printed for
members of Kibbutz Sde Eliyahu (Editor: Arieh Yarden)
Dedicated to the loving memory of Avi Mori
Moshe Reuven ben Yaakov z”l
Please respect the Holiness of these pages
These pages are also sent out weekly via the internet in MS Word
format. Anyone interested in receiving them, please feel feee to
contact me at the following email address: [email protected] Arieh.

1 - SHABBAT B’SHABBATO
(Tzomet)
Extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel
MIDYAN IS THE ENEMY
by Dina Amir, Be'erot Yitzchak
This week's Torah portion starts with an initiative by the king of
Moav, who fears Bnei Yisrael and therefore invites Bilam to curse
them. As is written in the Talmud, the name Bilam hints at "ben bli
am," a person without a nation (Sanhedrin 105a). The initial
delegation includes the wise men of Midyan (Bamidbar 22:7), but
they quickly see the light and leave, after the first time Bilam refuses
to come (see Rashi). Bilam's advice is, "The G-d of these people
despises harlotry" [Sanhedrin, ibid, and Rashi, 24:14], but the actual
action was performed by the daughters of Moav. Only one woman
from Midyan joins those from Moav. This is Kozbi daughter of Tzur, a
tribal chief of Midyan, who was struck down on the day of the
resulting plague.
It may be that the people of Midyan do not fear Yisrael in the way
their neighbors from Moav do. After all, Midyan has "a representative
in the palace," Moshe's wife Tziporah, the daughter of Yitro, who was
from Midyan. However, behind the scenes it is Midyan that initiates
action. For example, when the leaders of Moav were afraid, the
elders of Midyan advised them to appoint Balak ben Tzipor as king
(Ramban, 22:4). And while it was the daughters of Moav who invited
Bnei Yisrael to join their pagan sacrifices, they were following a plan
suggested by Midyan. G-d reveals this behind-the-scenes activity in
the command, "Irritate the Midyanites and strike them" [25:17]. This is
different from Moav, about whom we were commanded, "Do not
upset Moav and do not challenge them to war" [Devarim 2:9]. It would
seem that there is a paradox: Those who said "perhaps I can strike
them and expel them from the land" [Bamidbar 22:6] were not
punished, while those who left Bilam and returned home were slain
by the sword.
"For they bothered you with their fraud" [Bamidbar 25:18]. There
is a special reason for waging war with Midyan, and this is their trait
of dishonesty. They give the appearance of being friendly, with a
desire for peace, but in reality they are the worst possible examples
of fomenting war and controversy. Fraud has characterized the
people of Midyan from the very beginning. They were the ones who
passed by and raised Yosef up from the pit, but his brothers thought
that they were selling him to Yishmaelites (Bereishit 37:28). The
Midyanites do not have a reputation of commerce in human beings. If
they ever go to war, they make sure to find a partner, so that they will
not be held exclusively responsible. When they fought Hadad ben
Badad, King of Edom, he defeated them in the fields of Moav
(Bereishit 36:35). In the time of Gidon, they joined the forces of
Amalek and Bnei Kedem (Shoftim 6:3,33).
There are many reasons to wage war, and even to transform this
into the obligation of a mitzva. One reason is to fight against fraud. If
we have been openly commanded to destroy the people of Midyan,
there is without a doubt an additional internal reason too.
FROM THE HAFTARA: The Moral of the Torah
Portion of Balak
by Rabbi Amnon Bazak
In the Haftara (Micha 5:6-6:8), we are told about the "argument"
and the "controversy" (6:2) between the Almighty and Bnei Yisrael.
G-d complains, "my nation, what have I done to you and how did I
upset you?" [6:3]. He continues with a description of the good things
He did for Bnei Yisrael by taking them out of Egypt. It is surprising,
however, that of all the miracles in the desert, which are discussed in
many places in the Tanach as an expression of G-d's kindness (for
example, Tehillim 70:52-53, 105:39-41, 106:9-15), Micha only
mentions one event. "Remember what Balak, King of Moav, planned,
and what Bilam ben Be'or answered him... In order that you will know
the righteousness of G-d" [6:5]. Why is this the only event noted as
part of the "controversy?"
It seems that the controversy was a reaction to the actions of
Bnei Yisrael described in the beginning of the Haftara. The main
criticism of the nation is related to the verse, "I will eliminate magic
from your hands, and you will not have any sorcerers" [5:11]. This is
similar to other places where Micha sharply criticizes the prophets
who are evil sorcerers (see 3:5-12). The portion of Balak is
mentioned not only as an example of G-d's kindness but also as a
proof that the magicians and the sorcerers of the world are
powerless.
Thus, the phase "in order that you will know the righteousness of
G-d" has a double meaning: it refers to righteousness and kindness
but also to justice and truth. Only the service of G-d is truth, while
sorcerers can be described by Micha's verse elsewhere: "The seers
will be ashamed and the sorcerers will be disgraced... For G-d did not
answer them" [3:7]. This is exactly what happened to Bilam in this
week's portion.
TORAH WORDS FOR A JOYOUS OCCASION:
Marriage
by Rabbi Yehuda Shaviv
Bilam uses his evil point of view to find fault with Bnei Yisrael, in
order to curse them. He searches but he does not succeed, for what
he sees is so spectacular that he becomes excited by it. In spite of
himself, he approves the sight and blesses the people. "How good
are your tents, Yaacov, your dwellings, Yisrael" [Bamidbar 24:5].
Exactly what did he see? According to the sages, "he saw that the
openings of the tents were not pointed towards each other" [Bava
Batra 60a]. This demonstrates the traits of good manners, protection
of personal privacy, and respect for the unique identity of each family.
Every family has its own house, and every house has its own
opening.
When coming face to face with this reality, even one who wanted
to curse makes a blessing instead. This must also certainly apply to
one who comes with the intention of making a blessing. And here is
my blessing for the new couple: Let the house and its offspring
"stretch out like a stream, like a garden by a river, as aloe trees
planted by G-d" [24:6]. "These are worthy of having the Shechina rest
on them" [Bava Batra, ibid].
POINT OF VIEW: Freedom of Expression and
Cursing Bnei Yisrael
SHABBAT OF THE LAND: Discarding the Fruits of
Shemitta
by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen
1
by Rabbi Zev Vaitman
Produce that has Shemitta sanctity must be put through a
process of "bi'ur," removal, before the date that each species no
longer exists in the fields. For example, in the current season it is
possible to buy cherries, which can be used to prepare liqueur that
can then be stored for a long time. When there are no longer any
cherries in the fields, because all the fruit has been picked or has
become overripe, any cherries remaining in the house must be
destroyed or discarded. Fruit that is not removed becomes forbidden,
and there is no way to return its permissible status.
As to the details of the process of bi'ur, some of the early
commentators felt that it is necessary to physically destroy all the
produce. However, the halacha is that "hefker" is sufficient, that is,
relinquishing ownership of the produce, after which it is possible to
regain possession and then continue eating it.
In general, the precise time of bi'ur is not known, since it is not
easy to determine exactly when each different type of produce
disappears from the fields. Therefore, the best alternative is to
relinquish ownership at the earliest possible time, not retaking
possession until it is absolutely clear that the time has passed. With
respect to the specific case of cherries, it can be assumed that the
final time of harvest is during the month of Av, so ownership of any
cherries should be relinquished before Av begins, and the status
should be maintained until the beginning of Elul. Some types of
produce are specifically mentioned in the Talmud. One example is
grapes, which should be discarded the day before Pesach of the
eighth year. This includes wine made from grapes that grew during
Shemitta.
The procedure of relinquishing ownership consists of removing
the produce from the house and formally declaring the "hefker" in
front of three men who do not belong to the household. (They could
be close friends who will not try to take possession for themselves.)
When the exact date of bi'ur is not known, the owner should explicitly
declare that by taking "hefker" produce into his house he does not
mean to take possession of it, and that anybody who wants to take
some for himself is permitted to do so.
NOTES ON THE RASHBAM: Why Should Bilam
have been Killed?
by Rabbi Uri Dasberg
The angel tells Bilam, "And the donkey saw me and turned away
from me... If it had not turned away I would have killed you"
[Bamidbar 22:33]. This has been translated here in accordance with
Rashi, that the word "ulai" in this verse means "if not," including the
negative. However, the Rashbam disagrees with this, since the word
that means "if not" is "lulei," not "ulai," which carries a positive
connotation. See, for example, "Perhaps there is hope" [Eicha 3:29].
The Rashbam therefore interprets the word "ulai" as referring to a
positive possibility: If the donkey had turned away only after it
reached the angel and not before reaching him, Bilam would have
been killed. That is, the donkey was startled, and stopped before it
reached the angel, but if it had passed the position of the angel "you
would not have remained alive, with the small harm of having your
leg pinched, rather I would have killed you."
The difficulty with this reasoning is its implication that as long as
Bilam had not reached a specific point in front of the angel his trip
was acceptable. Are we to assume that the only reason he was to be
killed is that he went beyond this point and passed around the angel
(even though he did not know the angel was there)?
It may be that he incurred the death penalty because of the sin of
cruelty to an animal. The point of the angel is that Bilam's blows to
the donkey were relatively mild, in that they caused it to stand still but
not to continue in spite of the angel that it saw. For this, Bilam was
punished with a limp, but he was not worthy of death. However, if he
had struck the donkey so hard that it would have continued and
passed the angel, this would have shown that his blows were
extremely harsh, and Bilam would have been liable for the death
penalty.
Thus, we can see the seriousness of the sin of unnecessary
cruelty to an animal. This is even more severe in the case of striking
a human being. An example might be if the victim is more afraid of
his attacker than of the legal authorities, and is afraid of reporting the
incident to the police.
MEDICINE IN THE TORAH: "Falling, with Uncovered
Eyes" [Bamidbar 24:4] - Epilepsy
by Rabbi Yoel and Dr. Chana Catane
Epilepsy is caused by a sudden rapid electrical discharge in the
brain. It is unique in that a person who suffers from a severe attack
usually returns to normal after a short time. This is a chronic illness,
but there is no way to predict when an attack will occur. The details of
an attack may vary greatly. Examples are loss of consciousness,
disturbed behavior, cramps, foaming at the mouth, and more. An
attack may last from a brief moment to several hours. This illness can
appear from any age, and about one percent of the population suffer
from it. Epilepsy is not contagious in any form.
In most cases, the attacks can be prevented by regularly taking
medicine, which gives most of the patients the opportunity to live
normal lives. Many patients can be fully cured.
Most of the rabbis agree that epilepsy is a mortally threatening
illness, and it is therefore permitted to take medicine on Yom Kippur
and to violate Shabbat prohibitions in order to treat an epileptic.
Some rabbis have written that after each epileptic attack the patient
should recite the "hagomel" blessing, thanking G-d for being saved.
Doctors are required by law to report every person who has epilepsy
to the traffic bureau in order to test him or her for the ability to drive a
car.
IN THE CHEMED RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS: "Water will
Flow from his Well" [Bamidbar 24:7]
by the Center for Religious Education in Israel
Six years have gone by since the passing of Rabbi Shaul
Yisraeli, of blessed memory. We will take the opportunity to review
some of the highlights of his very active life.
Rabbi Yisraeli was born in White Russia in 5569 (1909). He
studied Torah clandestinely, until he escaped from Russia at great
peril to his life. Rabbi A.Y. Kook brought him to Eretz Yisrael in 1934,
and he studied at Yeshivat Merkaz Harav. He served as the rabbi of
Kefar Haroeh and as a teacher in the yeshiva there, the first of
yeshivot Bnei Akiva. He was one of the founders of the Rabbinical
Council of Hapoel Hamizrachi, and he was a leader of the
organization for many years.
Rabbi Yisraeli established and then edited the influential journal
"HaTorah V'Hamedina," Torah and the State. He was head of
Yeshivat Merkaz Harav and a member of the rabbinical appeals
court. He established the Eretz Chemda Institute for studying to be a
rabbinical court judge, and he served as its head. He had a profound
spiritual influence on the path of religious Zionism, taking an active
role for more than sixty years. He passed away on 19 Sivan 5755
(1995).
More details can be found in a special website that has been
established at the "kipa" portal, under the auspices of Ma'aleh, the
center for religious Zionism. The URL is: www.kipa.co.il/israeli.
More details are available from Ilan Friedman, at telephone 050563735.
A TALE TO BE TOLD: An Appropriate Punishment
by Eliyahu Misgav
Ariel had the status of a "lone soldier." He had left his family in
France and had come on Aliya by himself. He was clearly a
"foreigner" in every way: his thick accent, his European manners, and
the way he handled himself. In spite of his difficulty in acclimating to
the new country, his comrades and his officers liked him very much
and even chose him as the outstanding recruit of his platoon.
Near the end of basic training, his parents came for a four-day
visit, in order to get a look at their son in uniform. The day they
arrived he was given a pass for a few hours to meet them. After a
brief visit he left his parents, hoping to be able to see them again on
Shabbat, since they had not seen each other for one and a half
years. However, on the way back to his base, in a dramatic radio
appeal, he heard about a baby hurt in a traffic accident who needed a
donation of a rare blood type. Ariel, who had this type of blood, made
a stop at Magen David Adom, and only then returned to his base.
The next morning, before he was given an opportunity to explain,
the company commander gave him a punishment for returning late.
While the other soldiers would go home for Shabbat, Ariel would
remain in the base on guard duty.
The commander evidently held fast to the Talmudic principle,
"once something has been said, it cannot be changed." No amount of
pleading by his officers was able to change the ruling. Ariel did not
tell anybody why he had returned late - he was not one to boast
about his own good deeds - and he reconciled himself with being
away from his family.
However, to his surprise, Ariel's officers refused to accept the
company commander's ruling, and they raised the issue at a meeting
with the brigade commander, who decided that the punishment was
too severe. And Ariel was once again called before the company
commander, who informed him that the punishment was rescinded,
and that he would be given a pass for Shabbat. However, as a
punishment for coming late, he would be required to find time during
his leave to visit Magen David Adom and to donate blood. The
commander informed Ariel that he would ask to see a confirmation of
his donation when he returned on Sunday morning...

2 - MACHON MEIR
MACHON MEIR - http://www.virtual.co.il/education/machon-meir/parasha.htm
text

3 - NYCI (Block)
NCYI Weekly Divrei Torah, From:Kenneth Block ([email protected])
Rabbi Binyamin Hammer Young Israel of New Hyde Park, NY
The saga of Bilaam and his cruelty to manipulate and curse Klal
Yisrael is well known to us and our youngest of children. Bilaam
stands without equal, the only individual in the Torah to be described
as wicked, referring to him as Bilaam HaRasha. Furthermore, the
Talmud in Masechet Sanhedrin 105a portrays Bilaam as possessing
the most immoral and disgusting behavior, lowering himself to the
level of sinning with animals.
Yet, for every valid reason not to allow Bilaam to accompany
Balak to curse the Jewish people, HaShem's primary motivation is,
(Bamidbar 22:12) "lo telech imahem," you shall not go with them.
Rashi commenting on the pasuk, (Bamidbar 22:13) informs us, that
HaShem was protecting Bilaam's dignity from traveling with these
lowly emissaries. The Ohr HaChaim takes this thought one step
further; HaShem was questioning, how Bilaam, a messenger of G-d,
could even meet with such unworthy people. The Ohr HaChaim
adds, HaShem was so bothered with preserving the dignity of
Bilaam, that he killed the chamor - donkey, who stood up to Bilaam,
so that people would not say, "This is the donkey that brought down
Bilaam." Why is HaShem so concerned with Bilaam's dignity?
Wouldn't keeping the donkey alive create a greater Kiddush HaShem
- sanctification of G-d's name, showing that HaShem has dominion
over all his creatures and can even have a donkey speak?
Rabbi Chaim Shmulevitz z"l, the Mirrer Rosh Yeshiva, offers a
profound insight into Kavod HaAdam, the dignity of the human being.
Although disgracing Bilaam would have created a Kiddush HaShem,
in G-d's estimation preserving the majesty of man takes preference to
His own honor.
This donkey which HaShem created in the last moments of
Creation was not needed to protect Klal Yisrael from Bilaam's
wickedness. Their salvation was relying in HaShem. Rather, G-d
created this donkey for Bilaam's self-protection, to have him
2
reexamine his own evil intentions. So important is the dignity of
every human being, that HaShem defends even the least deserving.
Our life's goal is to walk in the path of HaShem, trying to reach
lofty heights. If we perceive life as walking an obstacle course with
difficult challenges along the way, we miss the message that
HaShem is sending us. The steps to growth are paved with G-d's
love for us and deep respect for our dignity. We must continue to
walk on that dignified road and help save those who have fallen by
the wayside, despite how much they have declined. If HaShem could
look out for a Bilaam HaRasha, we can be certain, that He is looking
out for us as well.

4 – RAV RISKIN
Rabbi Shlomo Riskin: http://www.ohrtorah.org.il/index.htm#top
Efrat, Israel - "There is no sorcery for Jacob, there is no magic for
Israel" (Numbers 23:23).
What is the true message of an entire Torah portion of Balak
dedicated to the hiring of a Gentile soothsayer to curse the Israelite
nation - but who instead becomes inspired to bless Israel and portray
the ultimate messianic destiny of Israel in the most exalted and
majestic of poetic metaphors? Are there indeed individuals with true
power to foretell future events - and ought we seek out such
individuals to help us tackle difficult moments in our lives which
threaten to overwhelm us? And if indeed Balak is a superior human
being with profound prophetic insights emanating from a Divine
source, why does the Torah triumphantly record the fact that "Balaam
Ben Beor the magician" was killed by Israel with the sword together
with the corpses of our Midianite enemies during the conquest of
Israel (Joshua 13:22)? And why does our Biblical text juxtapose the
sublime poetry of Balaam with the seemingly ridiculous tale of the
talking donkey?
I believe that the entire portion of Balaam is a study in contrast
between the legitimately earned prophecy of Moses and the venally
inspired sorcery of Balaam. The Torah understands that there exist
individuals who seem to have been born with special powers:
superior physical strength, a phenomenal photographic memory,
sharp vision which can penetrate the thickest of partitions, intense
concentration that can cause physical objects to explode, and can
perhaps even bring messages from the dead.
There is even a difference of opinion amongst our Sages as to
whether such phenomena reflect actual occurrences or are merely
slight-of-hand trickery. When the Bible records King Saul's last ditch
attempt to discover his destiny by asking the witch of Endor to seek
the counsel of the dead Samuel - and she indeed provides the true
message that "the Almighty will tear the kingdom from your hands
and give it over to your friend David" - the commentaries are divided
as to the factual truth of the account: Rabbenu Saadya Gaon accepts
the Biblical story as it is written, and Rabbi Shmuel Ben Hafni Gaon
insists that the witch of Endor deceived King Saul (Samuel 1, Chapter
28 and its Geonic commentaries.
In a later generation, the arch-rationalist Maimonides calls all
pronouncements emanating from supernatural communications and
insights - including the writing and wearing of mystical amulets
(kameyot)- "false and vain", bordering on idolatry (Maimonides,
Mishneh Torah, Laws of Idolatry 1, 16 and Guide, Part 1, Chapter
61); on this basis, Rav Yosef Karo similarly dismisses all magical
incantations as "not availing in the least," but merely exercising
positive psychological influence upon individuals in distress (Shulhan
Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 179, 6). The Vilna Gaon, on the other hand,
suggests that Maimonides' philosophical study "misled or corrupted
him," insisting that there are amulets and incantations, perhaps and
perhaps even communications from the beyond, which are rooted in
the sacred and the divine (ibid, paragraph 13). Perhaps the most
important and representative view on the issue is presented by Rav
Shlomo Ben Aderet (Rashba, Responsa 548), when he had to judge
the credibility of a Reb Nissim who claimed to have received the
messages from an angel; the great Talmudic scholar Rashba insists
that divine communication akin to Prophesy can only rest on one who
is truly wise and pious, strong and courageous, and sufficiently
wealthy as to not be in need of monetary contributions from those
seeking his advice. Claims, and even what seems to be empirical
facts, of supernatural abilities by individuals who are not outstanding
in Torah scholarship and piety dare not be taken seriously - at the
risk of flirting with idolatrous and even demonic blandishments.
The truth is that the Bible is indubitably clear when it warns us
against seeking after any manner of magic or sorcery and exhorts us
to be whole-hearted and pure in our service of the Divine
(Deuteronomy 18:9-14). Our prophets did not major in futuristic
prophecies but rather in chastising towards more ethical and genuine
behavior; they certainly did not take remuneration for their words.
And individual devoid of the proper - difficult to acquire - intellectual
and spiritual prophetic attainments who makes pronouncements
which even may appear to be vindicated by future discoveries is no
better than the "talking donkey" in our Torah portion; a prophet of G-d
must first and foremost be a model of Torah scholarship and piety.
Moses was a prophet of G-d; Balaam was a soothsayer. Moses
sought Divine truth while Balaam yearned for gold and silver. The
conclusion of our Torah portion is most succinct and specific: ''There
is no sorcery for Jacob nor magic for Israel. Now I'll tell you how G-d
works: when individuals rise early for their Torah study, they triumph
like the lion cub, grabbing onto the commandments, wearing the ritual
fringes, reciting the sh'ma and putting on the phylacteries. They do
not eat before reciting the Evening Prayer. And they drink the blood
of corpses as when they killed Balaam the soothsayer"(Numbers
33:34 as interpreted by Rashi through the eyes of our Sages. See
too Joshua 13:22.)

5- UNITED SYNAGOGUE
Copyright 1999 United Synagogue Publications Ltd.
WHEN A CURSE IS NOT A CURSE
Rabbi Alex Chapper - Reading Hebrew Congregation
There is a strange sequence of events that tends to be
overlooked in the whole bizarre episode of Bile'am and Balak's
attempts to curse the Jewish people. After Bile'am's first attempt
fails, Balak asks him to go with him to another place from which to
see the Jewish nation and curse them from there. When this also
fails, Balak says: 'Please come. I will take you to another place.
Perhaps it will be fitting in the eyes of G-d that you may curse them
for me there.' (Bemidbar 23:27) What was Balak hoping to
accomplish by the repeated change of location? The Sforno (15th
century) comments: 'So that you will be able to look at them with evil
intent.' Balak perceived that Bile'am's perspective was perhaps
preventing him from performing his mission.
I would like to suggest something similar, taking into
consideration a famous episode in the Book of Joshua.
Supernatural help
When it came to the conquest of the fortified city of Jericho, G-d
gave specific instructions. It was quite clear that natural means
would be insufficient. Therefore, the people were told to circle the
city seven times and when the shofar sounded they were to shout
loudly and the walls of the city would collapse. This is exactly what
happened and the battle was won by spiritual achievement only
(Joshua Chapter 5). (See also Michtav Me'Eliyahu by Rav Dessler
who gives a beautiful explanation of the significance of the number
seven.)
These two incidents appear to contain a similar metaphor.
From Bile'am, we see that challenges often beat us. Even
changing positions did not enable him to successfully curse the
Jewish people. However, in the challenges that we face, in our
struggles to succeed, maybe we should try to view the situation from
a different angle, from a new perspective or with a fresh approach. In
this way, we might find that a problem is not insurmountable, that
what appears to be a blessing is not always so and that a curse is
not necessarily a curse.
Trust
From the walls of Jericho, we can learn that sometimes our own
physical prowess is not enough. Six times round the wall had no
effect, only the added dimension of the seventh achieved results.
Human effort is not always necessary. Sometimes it is more
important to admit that matters are not in our control - the shouting
loudly did just that. Ultimately, we might find that obstacles do not
have to be tackled head on and that, with time and consideration,
they may just disappear.
Rav Dessler in Michtav Me'Eliyahu writes: 'The essence of
bitachon - the mitzvah of trust and confidence in G-d - is to know that
everything comes from G-d. True, we engage - and we are
commanded to engage - in activities directed towards achieving
certain results in the physical world. But we must realise that these
actions are not the true causes of the results which seem to flow
from them. The true cause is always the will of G-d.'
If that was our worldview, we could live with a lot less fear,
anxiety and doubt.
PETHORAH: 'TO PETHOR'.
The accent is on the Tav; ah means 'to, towards'.
Balak sent to Bileam, a native of Pethor on the river, Euphrates.
In Devarim 23:4, it is Pethor of Aram Naharaim, meaning Aram of
the Two Rivers, or, translated by many, including the Greek, as
Mesopotamia
(roughly Iraq), which actually means 'The land
between two rivers'. Pethor has been identified as Pittiru, mentioned
among the towns of Syria captured by Thotmes III of Egypt (15th
century BCE). Two of his obelisks are now in the West: Cleopatra's
Needle by the Thames and the other is in Central Park, New York.
Pethor was later taken by the Hittites, who in turn lost it to
Shalmaneser III, King of Assyria (859 - 825 BCE).
BK
HALACHAH IN PRACTICE Outward Signs
Tzitzit
When we say Baruch She'amar (Singers p.37), we hold the two
front Tzitzit and kiss them at the end of the prayer. The several
expressions of baruch at the beginning are an incomplete berachot
without the name of G-d. The sixteen strands and ten knots of the
two tzitzit make up the number twenty six, the numerical value of the
Tetragrammaton (G-d's four lettered name), and thus complete the
berachot.
We hold all four tzitzit (four corners of the earth) during the
Shema, from veha'avienu (ibid. p.63) to kayamet (ibid. p.71). When
we mention them in the third paragraph, we hold them to our eyes
and kiss them. We likewise kiss them at emet and kayamet.
Tefillin
We touch the shin and bayit of the hand and the knot and bayit of
the head at poteach et yadecha in Ashrei (ib. pp.47 and 125) and
when we mention them in the first and second paragraphs of the
Shema. It is also recommended that we touch them at intervals to
remind us that we are wearing them.
Mezuzah
We kiss it as we leave and enter our homes, though some do so
whenever they leave and re-enter a room, house or other property.
BRAGGING SPEECH
Bernd Koschland
According to Pirkei Avot (5:6), the mouth of the ass (Bemidbar
22:28) was created at twilight on Erev Shabbat. The explanations for
this miraculous phenomenon are many. (See the Hertz Chumash
p.671.) The ass itself was not created during the six days for it could
not have lived until the period of Bile'am! Yet the mouth of the ass
had to be included somehow in the act of Creation; otherwise it
would have meant that the laws of nature were to be changed on the
spot. The Talmud explains: planted stolen seeds cannot be
prevented from growing; if they were, it would be an alteration in
Nature. Hence, it was by Divine decree that, when the
3
appropriate time would arrive, the potential (the items mentioned in
Ethics 5:6) would become actuality - the mouth of the ass would be
opened and speak.
A Midrash observes that the speaking ass illustrates that the
mouth and tongue are in the power of G-d. If He wishes to curse, He
is able so to do and, likewise, to change it to a blessing. It further
asks how did the speech of the ass benefit us humans? It replies
that the power of speech is G-d's gift, to enable an animal to
speak like a human and a human like a beast.
Dayan Swift z"l comments: the ass once complained about its
role and urged to be given speech to plead for consideration from
overwork. G-d granted the request. Bile'am's ass, instead of berating
him for his evil intent, bragged about itself: 'Am I not the ass you
have ridden to this day ...?' Because it spoke of its own yichus and
did not defend others, the ass would remain dumb. Speech, says
Dayan Swift, is for the loftier things of life and not for selfaggrandisement and vain pride. The test of a person is how he or
she defends others. 'We do not speak for ourselves, but for the other
Jew.'
Whilst nowadays 'ass' is a derogatory term, it is not so in the
Tenach, where it occurs some one hundred and thirty eight times
from Abraham (Bereshit 12:16) onwards. The King (Messiah) will
arrive riding an ass (Zechariah 9:9). Bimherah Beyameinu.
STANMORE APPEARS ON THE STAGE OF JEWISH
HISTORY
Elkan D Levy - Former President, United Synagogue
The medieval Hebrew conveyance of the Manor of Stanmore is
in a form that is not unlike current Hebrew deeds. It begins with the
phrase: 'ani hachotem mata mode hAdam of Stratton', who bought
the Manor of Little Stanmore from Hagin (Chayyim) of Lincoln. Adam
was a very curious character. An ordained clergyman, he openly
flouted the church's restrictions on money lending and seemingly
also dabbled in black magic. When he was arrested, he attempted to
throw away a bag that was in his possession; when recovered it
proved to be full of artefacts, such as bats' wings and mouse
skeletons used by the magicians of the day.
He had a long and very controversial career, which came to a
temporary halt in 1290 when his involvement in homicide was finally
too much for King Edward I, and he was arrested. Sir Adam of
Stratton ensured that he would be kept alive by forging a document
purporting to prove that the King owned the Isle of Wight and after a
few years he was released!
When arrested, however, he still had in his possession the deed
by which Chayyim of Lincoln had sold to him the manor of Little
Stanmore. This was taken into Government records. To this day, it
can be found in the Public Record Office at Kew. The Hebrew is
clearly legible, particularly the signature at the end - Chayyim of
Lincoln, the leader of the Jewish community in those days.
There is, however, one strange footnote. When Chayyim's
brother Rabbi Elijah Menachem of London died, his estate came into
the possession of the King. The usual practice in those days was for
the assets of the deceased to be sold by the monarch, but in this
case he gave certain of Menachem's assets to Stephen of Chenduit.
One wonders whether Chayyim of Lincoln's conduct was as upright
as it might have been, whether Stephen of Chenduit remained very
angry that he had lost the manor of Little Stanmore and whether, as
compensation, he was given assets which had belonged to
Chayyim's brother.

6 -PROJECT GENESIS
The Jewish Learning Network Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.torah.org/
A). PG LIFELINE:
"How goodly are your tents, Jacob, your dwelling places, O
Israel." [24:5]
As we know, Bilaam wanted to curse Israel, but G-d prevented
him from doing so -- by putting blessings into his mouth instead. In
the Talmud [Sanhedrin 105b], Rebbe Yochanon tells us that if we
read the blessings carefully, we can find within them the curses which
Bilaam wanted to deliver.
Bilaam wanted to curse Israel to deny them houses of prayer and
study, but HaShem forced him to say "how goodly are your tents" (as
we see in Genesis where Yaakov is referred to as a "dweller in tents,"
which means that he sat constantly in the House of Study). Bilaam
wanted to say that the Divine Presence should not rest upon Israel,
but he was forced to say "your dwelling places, O Israel" (the word for
"dwelling places" is Mishkanos, from the root Mishkan, the
Tabernacle -- the place where the Divine Presence rested). And in
this vein Rebbe Yochanon analyzes the verses which follow as well.
Rebbe Aba bar Kahana says in conclusion: "all of these reverted
to curses, with the exception of the blessing for Houses of Prayer and
Study, as it says [in Deuteronomy 23:6] '...and G-d reversed the
curse to a blessing, for HaShem your L-rd loved you' -- curse, and not
curses." Although Bilaam's curses were many, all of the other curses
-- save the one for Houses of Prayer and Study -- eventually came to
pass. The Temple was destroyed, and Israel was left with neither
kings nor kingdom. Houses of Prayer and Study, however, are with
us always.
Why is this true? Why was it that G-d preserved this blessing
above all the others?
R. Shabsay ben Meir HaKohen, author of the Sifsei Kohen
commentary on the Code of Jewish Law, says that as long as Israel
has Houses of Prayer and Study, as long as Israel makes requests
and trusts HaShem to hear their prayers and remains devoted to
Torah study, then the other curses are very limited. They can
damage, but they cannot destroy.
This one curse was "everything" -- by comparison, all the others
are nothing! By reversing this one curse, G-d prevents the others
from having terminal impact (Heaven forbid!). Torah study and prayer
keep us alive as a people.
What happens to peoples whose kings are dethroned, and who
are exiled from their lands? They assimilate into their new
surrounding culture, and disappear as a distinct population.
For 2000 years of exile, Israel has proven the exception. For
Israel, Torah study and prayer keep us alive, far more so than land or
rulership. [As we see so sadly in our own era, when we have our land
but not study of Torah, nothing prevents young Jews from moving to
other countries and disappearing from the Jewish community. With
the current grave situation, 'yeridah' -- leaving Israel -- is only likely to
get worse. Even in the Land of Israel, we need the Torah of Israel.]
As we say in our prayers, "we will rejoice in the words of Your
Torah and your Mitzvos for all eternity, for they are our lives and the
length of our days!"
B). RAV FRAND:
WAS G-D BILAAM'S AGENT? DOING IT FOR 'THE CAUSE' VS.
FOR THE MONEY
Parshas Balak contains the well-known story of Balak the King of
Moav worrying about the imminent approach of the Jewish people.
Moav correctly surmised that, given the fate of the other kings and
nations that had challenged Bnei Yisrael [the Children of Israel] with
conventional military tactics, Moav would not stand a chance
confronting them in traditional battle.
Therefore, Balak devised a "secret weapon" -- the chemical
weapon of his day. "And he sent messengers to Bilaam son of
Beor..." [Bamidbar 22:5] Bilaam had the ability to curse someone.
When he did so, the curse would in fact take effect on its intended
victim. So Balak requested that Bilaam curse the "nation that has
gone out from Egypt and covered the face of the land."
Bilaam asked the messengers to stay overnight, so that he could
answer Balak's request the next morning based upon what G-d would
tell him. G-d told Bilaam, "Do not go with them; do not curse the
people, for they are Blessed" [22:12]. Bilaam relayed that message to
Balak's messengers.
When Balak heard that Bilaam would not come, he assumed that
the reason was because the proposed compensation was inadequate
-- that he had tried to get away too cheap. Therefore, Balak sent a
more prestigious delegation promising Bilaam a great reward and
granting his every request.
Bilaam, not being anyone's fool, casually mentioned to the
messengers, "Even if Balak will give me his entire treasury filled with
silver and gold, my hands are tied -- I can only do that which G-d
permits me to do." Again, they proceeded through the whole process
of waiting overnight.
This time, G-d told Bilaam, "If these people are coming for your
advantage (likra lecha), then go with them -- just only speak that
which I tell you" [22:20]. If we can even use such terminology, it
appears as if G-d changed his mind! The first time that Bilaam asked
for permission, G-d said "No. You can not go!" Then, G-d appeared
to suddenly change His mind. What changed?
Rash"i comments on the words "Im Likra Lecha," that if these
people are coming for your benefit -- to give you payment, go with
them. In other words, if you stand to make profit out of this venture,
then I have no objection to your going.
That was the difference! The first time, when they asked Bilaam
to come, they did not offer him anything -- neither money nor honor.
In that situation, G-d told Bilaam, "Do not go." The second time,
Balak offered Bilaam wealth and honor. In that situation, G-d told him,
"If you stand to gain from this, then you can go."
Is G-d worried about Bilaam's livelihood? Is He acting as Bilaam's
agent? Pro bono, you cannot go. If you charge by the hour -- then
you can go?
I heard a fantastic insight regarding this concept from Rav
Shimon Schwab (1908-1995). The difference, says Rav Schwab, is
that one of the most potent forces in the universe is doing something
"Lishma" - for it's own sake, without ulterior motives. Doing something
altruistically, for the sake of what one believes to be right, is a force
beyond belief. However, when people do things because they stand
to make a dollar, rather than for the sake of a cause, it loses its
potency.
Rav Schwab related this insight in the context of explaining the
rise and fall of the Communist system during the previous century.
Communism was a very successful movement. Until very recently,
there were more than a billion and a half people who lived under
Communist domination - and yet in recent times we have seen
Communism disintegrate.
What made Communism so successful? Rav Schwab argued
that Communism became so successful because there were
"Lishma-niks." People like Lenin and Trotsky and Marx were people
who wanted to give the world a better order. They wanted to give the
world a new system to replace the "bankruptcy of capitalism," in
which some are fantastically wealthy and some beg on the street. In
a sense, Communism was based on very noble ideals. These were
people who were -- for lack of a better word -- L'shem Shamayim [for
the sake of Heaven]! They did it for the sake of Communism. They
were Lishma!
Rav Schwab related that he remembered a Communists parade
in his city in Germany in the 1920s. There was a Jewish kid who had
rebelled against his parents and marched in the front line of this
parade. He was despised. He was an outcast of the entire
community. But this did not faze him, because he did it Lishma. He
believed in what he was doing, like so many of our Jewish brethren
who unfortunately believed in it.
When people are willing to give up their lives and souls for the
sake of a cause, that is a very potent force. We can look back now,
over 70 years later, and try to discover what happened to the
movement that caused it to collapse. We can suggest that to a large
extent, the system failed because it lost this element of 'Lishma'.
When we saw that all the leaders of the various "Iron Curtain"
countries had stashed away Swiss bank accounts and when we
4
saw all the corruption and graft, we quickly recognized that the
Lishma had been abandoned. Once they lost the element of Lishma,
the potency of the force was gone.
This is what G-d was telling Bilaam: When Balak came and said
"Curse the Jews" without offering honor or money, the reason why
Bilaam was going was because he hated Jews. "We have to curse
Jews! I want to eradicate Jews." This is a philosophy. It is a CAUSE.
In that case, "Watch Out! You may not go." G-d knows that a sincere
CAUSE is a lethal and potent force.
However, when Balak said, "I will give you Honor and Money,"
then G-d told Bilaam: If this is for your own benefit -- if you are doing
it for the money, then go. That is a different story. If you are "in it" for
the money and honor, rather than Lishma -- then your ability will not
be nearly as potent.
C). PARSHA PARABLES (Rabbi M Kamenetzky)
IS SINCERITY AT STEAK?
This week, we find the gentile world's greatest prophet, Bila'am,
challenged by bot his conscience, Hashem's will and of course, a
formidable foe. Balak, the King of Moav asked him to cast a curse
upon the Jewish nation. He sent a delegation of servants to implore
him, but Bila'am refused. His hands were tied, or more accurately,
his lips were sealed. After besseching the Almighty for permission to
curse the Jewis nation, "Hashem said to Balaam, 'You shall not go
with them! You shall not curse the people, for it is blessed!'"
(Numbers 22:12)
Despite Bila'am's initial refusal, Balak was determined. He sent
another delegation, this time, distinguished officers, "higher ranking
than the previous" (ibid v.15) "They came to Balaam and said to him,
"So said Balak son of Zippor, 'Do not refrain from going to me. for I
shall honor you greatly, and everything that you say to me I shall do;
so go now and curse this people for me.' Balaam answered and said
to the servants of Balak, "If Balak will give me his houseful of silver
and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem, my G-d, to do
anything small or great:But Bila'am does not leave it at that. He really
wants to be a part of the plot. That night he resubmits his request to
Hashem, and this time G-d acquiesces. Hashem came to Balaam at
night and said to him, "If the men came to summon you, arise and go
with them, but only the thing that I shall speak to you -- that shall you
do" (ibid v. 20). And so, the Torah tells us, the next day, "Bila'am
arose in the morning and personally saddled his she-donkey and
went with the officers of Moab." " (ibid v. 21).
The next verse seems strange. Even though just a few p'sukim
prior, Bila'am had attained permission, the Torah tells us, "Hashem's
wrath flared because he was going, and an angel of Hashem stood
on the road to impede him." The question is straightforward. If
Bila'am attained permission to accompany them, why was "
Hashem's wrath flared"? After all if G-d said yes, what did he expect?
There is an old Jewish story about the shnorrer who goes
collecting one Sunday in the prestigious community synagogue,
pleading for funds. Though the prestigious synagogue had a "no
solicitor" policy, the President of the congregation was somehow
convinced of the beggars sincerity.
After the three morning minyanim, depart the man walks out of
the synagogue with a smile. A few hours later he parks himself in the
town's most elegant restaurant and orders a rib-eye steak. The
President of the synagogue walks in and notices the schnorrer, cloth
napkin tucked conspicuously under his chin, with a succulent steak
resting on his plate nestled comfortably between a portion of fried
potatoes and asparagus.
"Hands on his hips the flabbergasted president accosted the
man.
"Is that what you do with the money you collected in our
synagogue?"
The pauper shrugged his shoulders and shrugged. "I don't
understand. When I don't have money I can't eat steak. When I do
have money I shouldn't eat steak. So when, may I ask, can I eat
steak?"
Billam, at first is refused permission to go with Balak's advisors.
He seems to be reluctant to even consider the offer, claiming that
even if he is offered a houseful of the gold and silver he can't go.
Yet Balak perseveres, Bila'am re-requests and Hashem finally
agrees, caveats attached.
But instead of Billam using his new-found permission to
reluctantly trudge along, he develops a whole new attitude. He is up
at the crack of dawn, he passionately saddles his own donkey, a
chore normally delegated to his servants, Hashem sees that Billam is
not being coerced, nor schlepped, rather, "He is going." Then His ire
flares. Hashem's reluctant approval turned into Bila'ams enthusiastic
accompaniment.
Life often presents us the opportunities, in which our ingrained
convictions are challenged. Sometimes we must bend the rules.
Attend a meeting, in an unfamiliar atmosphere; sharing a drink with
an unsavory client; spending an evening with a haughty politician.
The question is simple; once we have the opportunity to drift, do we
attach ourselves to the flotsam and ride the waves with zest. Or is
every step of the way met with the original emotions of reluctance
and apprehension. Billam's originally refused to go along. He told
Balak he just couldn't go. But when he received permission from
Hashem, his attitude changed quickly.
From a pronounced
subservience to G-d's the reluctant prophet became the enthusiastic
co-conspirator saddling his own donkey and excitingly joining the evil
plotters. How quickly do his loyalties adjust! When given the
opportunity, it is easy for a despondent pauper to turn into an
indulging guzzler. Sometimes, it doesn't matter if our conscience is
at stake, when a steak intrudes upon our conscience.
D). P’SHUTO SHEL MIKRA (Rabbi Yitz Etshalom)
text

7 - HAR ETZION (VBM)
Virtual Beit Midrash, Alon Shevut, Gush Etzion 90433 e-mail: [email protected],
Home Page: http://www.virtual.co.il/education/yhe
A) INTRODUCTION TO PARSHAT HASHEVUAH
THE PROPHECIES OF BILAM
By Rav Michael Hattin
INTRODUCTION
Last week, we read of the remarkable Israelite victory over
Sichon and Og, the ominous Amorite kings. With their triumph, the
people secure and begin to settle the lands east of the Jordan
River. The Kingdom of Moav and its provisional leader Balak, still
smarting from their own loss of territory at the hands of Sichon,
feel even more threatened by the Israelite tribes now at their
doorstep. With the demise of Sichon and Og, regarded as the
regional superpowers, the people of Moav and their nomadic
Midianite kin abandon any hope of successfully engaging the
Israelites in battle. Instead, they opt for a more supernatural if less
materially gratifying approach: the imposition of an execration by the
well-known Eastern seer Bilam.
Hailing from the town of Petor on the banks of the distant
Euphrates, Bilam is a well-known personality in the occult circles of
the region. The efficacies of his curses and blessings have gained
him a unique reputation and have also provided him with a
substantial and steady source of income. Eager to answer the call
of Balak and his Midianite henchmen but conscious of his own
limitations, Bilam inquires of the Deity and requests His sanction
for the mission, but God's response proves inconclusive: "…that
which I shall say to you, you shall do" (Bemidbar 22:20). Thus,
although Bilam saddles his ass and accompanies Balak's
messengers, he will provide no guarantees.
In the most peculiar
encounter which follows, the invisible angel of the Lord thrice bars
the path of Bilam's donkey, each time with greater menacing effect.
Bilam, dumb to the vision of the beast but impatient with its
increasing reluctance to proceed, strikes the donkey harshly. Finally,
God, in an event without parallel in the Scriptures, grants the ass
the power of speech, and its eloquent protests to Bilam are
succeeded by the revelation of the angel to Bilam's senseless
eyes. Warning him to not stray from God's directives, the angel
allows Bilam to proceed, and finally he arrives at the border of Moav.
STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIES
At Balak's impatient behest, Bilam attempts to pronounce his
curse against the people of Israel, but three times his efforts meet
with failure. The textual structure of the three, and of a fourth that
Bilam pronounces to a startled Balak unprompted, is quite similar.
Invariably (excluding the final fourth pronouncement), the endeavor
begins with Balak's invitation to Bilam to view the extremity of
the Israelite encampment from afar. This is followed by Bilam's
directive to Balak to erect a series of seven altars and to offer a
bullock and a ram on each of them. Bilam then ascends alone to
the designated high place to receive Divine inspiration. God
encounters him, "places words in his mouth," and sends him back to
Balak and his officers, who patiently await his return. To the
surprise and consternation of Balak, Bilam then proceeds to
pronounce a Divinely mandated blessing of the people of Israel.
This is followed by a frustrated outburst by Balak, and countered by
Balak's apologetic remark that he can only communicate the
message that God "places in his mouth."
With respect to the fourth pronouncement, Bilam offers it without
Balak's invitation, without prior preparation, and without the need to
'ascend on high' to receive God's word.
His final blessing is
presented as a fitting climax to the entire narrative, an eloquent
pronouncement that surpasses his earlier words, both in composition
and style.
POINTS TO PONDER
Clearly, the Torah invites us to consider the content of Bilam's
pronouncements through the prism of their similar structure, as if the
pattern that seems to inform the entire account must in some way
contribute to the significance of his words. Additionally, we are
called upon to investigate the connection of the introductory 'donkey'
episode to what follows. Why would the Torah have Bilam's donkey
stop in its tracks three times and no more, if not to bluntly
suggest a link with his three subsequent attempts to curse the
people of Israel?
Examining his three pronouncements in turn will be helpful to
not only highlight their similarities, but more importantly to point out
their contrasts. What we may discover is that there is more here
than simply three independent proclamations of roughly equal
weight. In fact, we shall see that Bilam's words affirm a very
deliberate and meaningful progression.
FIRST ENCOUNTER
"The Lord incidentally encountered ('VayiKaR') Bilam…and
placed words in his mouth…He (Bilam) declared his oracle and
said: 'Balak King of Moav has brought me from Aram, from the
eastern mountains, to arise and to curse Yaacov and to
pronounce words of wrath against Yisrael. But how can I curse,
since the Almighty has not? How can I be wrathful when God
is not? I see them from the heights of the mountains and gaze
on them from the hills. They are a nation that dwells alone, that
is not reckoned among the peoples. Who can count the dust of
Yaacov or ascertain the number of Yisrael's descendants? Let
my soul perish like the righteous, let my end be like theirs!"
(Bemidbar 23:4-10).
In this first attempt, we notice that 'THE LORD' ('Elohim')
encounters Bilam INCIDENTALLY ('VayiKaR), and that Israel is
SINGLED OUT as a nation that is like no other. Additionally, we
are impressed by
descriptions
of Yisrael's abundance, of
descendants as numerous as the dust of the earth. There seems,
however, to be no definitive historical period to which Bilam may be
alluding.
SECOND ENCOUNTER
"God incidentally encountered ('VayiKaR') Bilam and placed
words in his mouth…He (Bilam) declared his oracle and
5
said: 'Arise Balak and hear, hearken to me son of Tzippor. The
Lord is not like man to waver, nor is He Hemortal to change His
mind. Does He proclaim and not fulfill, does He speak and not
carry out? I have taken a blessing, for He has blessed and I
cannot reverse it. He sees no wrongdoing in Israel, no
iniquity in Yisrael, God the Lord is with them and the glorious
presence of the King is in their midst. The Almighty brought
them out of Egypt and He is like the mighty horns of the bison
for them. No magic can prevail against Yaacov, no occult
against Yisrael, for now the works of the Almighty shall be told
to Yaacov and to Yisrael. They are nation that rises like the
lion and lifts itself like the lion. They too shall not lie down
until they have consumed the prey and drank the blood of the
kill'" (Bemidbar 23:16-24).
This time, we notice that it is not 'the Lord' ('Elohim') that
encounters Bilam, but rather GOD ('HaShem'). We are told of His
immutability, of His desire to bless, and of His CONTINUOUS
PRESENCE in Israel. Significantly, a historical note is inserted into
the proclamation, for Bilam speaks of God's involvement in the
EXODUS. Finally, there is a somewhat obscure allusion to a lion, to
a mighty people of Israel that will consume its undefined 'prey'
before 'lying down.' Bearing in mind the chronological element
introduced
by the Exodus, we would perhaps
not
be
overstepping our bounds by understanding it as a reference to the
CONQUEST OF CANAAN (the 'prey'), and the beginning of the
process of SETTLEMENT (the 'lying down').
THIRD ENCOUNTER
"When Bilam saw that it was fitting in God's eyes to bless
Israel he did not seek out occult forces as before. Instead,
he set his gaze towards the wilderness. Bilam lifted his eyes
and saw the people of Israel dwelling according to their tribes,
and the spirit of the Lord came upon him. He (Bilam)
proclaimed his oracle and said: 'These are the words of Bilam
son of Be'or, the words of the man with the seeing eye.
These are the words of the one who heard the words of the
Almighty, who perceived a vision of the All Powerful, falling
down with open eyes. How goodly are your tents, Yaacov,
your dwelling places Yisrael.
They are like outstretched
streams, like gardens by the river, likaloes planted by God,
like cedars by the waters. His wells shall overflow with water,
his crops shall be watered abundantly, his king shall be greater
than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted. The Almighty who
brought them out of Egypt and is like the mighty horns of the
bison for them, shall devour the nations that oppress them,
grinding their bones and wounding them with His arrows. They
shall lie down and sleep like the lion, and who shall bestir them?
Those that bless you shall be blessed, those that curse you
shall be cursed!'" (Bemidbar 24:1-9).
Here, we see how Bilam finally recognizes the INEFFICACY
OF THE OCCULT against Israel. Now it is the SPIRIT OF THE
LORD that inspires him, for he has seen a VISION of the Almighty.
In his mind's eye, Bilam sees
the tribes of Israel planted
SECURELY AND PRODUCTIVELY by the waters. He sees their
KING, whose KINGDOM will be glorious and great, surpassing that
of 'Agag.'
Their ENEMIES
SHALL BE
COMPLETELY
VANQUISHED, for the lion that is Israel will devour them and chew
on their proverbial bones.
This time, Bilam sees farther into the future, for the tribes that in
his second vision could not settle in security before conquering
their foes, are here described as 'lying down' with none to dare rouse
them. In this third encounter, Bilam sees a king in Israel, greater
than 'Agag.' This Agag is none other than the King of Amalek,
vanquished by Israel's first king, Shaul (see Shmuel/Samuel 1,
Chapter 15). The reference would therefore be to the founding of
the monarchy in Israel, an event that took place about three hundred
and fifty years after the Exodus from Egypt.
This development
culminated with the ascent of David to the throne, the sovereign
who finally conquered Israel's hostile neighbors and laid the
groundwork for the founding of an empire.
LAST ENCOUNTER
As stated above, Bilam's final prophecy is offered unsolicited.
Balak
is not called upon
to
undertake
any preliminary
preparations, and God is not sought out but rather appears.
Significantly, Bilam presents his parting words as a vision of what
the people of Israel shall do to Moav 'at the end of days':
"He (Bilam) proclaimed his oracle and said: 'These are the
words of Bilam son of Be'or, the words of the man with the
seeing eye. These are the words of the one who heard the
words of the Almighty, who knows the knowledge of the Most
High, who perceived a vision of the All Powerful, falling down
with open eyes. I see him but not now, I gaze upon him but not
soon. A star will shoot forth out of Yaacov, a scepter shall rise
from Yisrael, who shall crush the princes of Moav and demolish
all of Shet's descendants. Edom shall be their inheritance,
Se'ir their enemies shall be their inheritance, and Israel shall be
triumphant. A ruler from Yaacov shall destroy the remnant of
the city…'" (Bemidbar 24:14-19).
In this last vision, Bilam submits that he peers far into the
future, seeing the so-called 'end of days' that elsewhere in Tanakh
connotes the MESSIANIC AGE (see
Devarim 4:30,
31:29;
Yishayahu/Isaiah 2:1; Yechezkel/Ezekiel 38:16; etc.). This time, his
perception of God's words is complemented by KNOWLEDGE of
the Most High. Bilam sees a MESSIANIC FIGURE, an ideal king,
who will finally and irrevocably make an end of Israel's foes, who
will vanquish Moav and Edom, its ancestral enemies. ALL OF
HUMANITY, the sons of Shet (Seth, the third son of Adam and
Chava, whose descendants constitute the human race), will
reluctantly recognize Israel's ascendancy and their message
shall finally triumph.
THE READING OF THE RAMBAN
6
Noticing the textual cues pointed out above, the Ramban (13th
century, Spain) perceptively comments:
"All of Bilam's prophecies see progressively farther into the
future. First he pointed out that Israel is God's portion and
inheritance, then he spoke of their conquest of the land and
domination of its kings. Thirdly, he saw them securely dwelling
in their land and becoming abundant upon it. He saw them
appoint a king that would vanquish Amalek, and establish a
kingdom that would achieve victory under David…In this fourth
vision, Bilam goes on to see the Messianic Age, and he
therefore describes his vision as 'not now' and 'not soon'…"
(commentary to 24:14).
In other words, Bilam's visions are not simply three or four selfcontained units, but rather a progression of ideas that
taken
together describe the complete historical development of the
people of Israel. Poised to enter the land of Canaan, the stages of
Israel's conquest, settlement, securing
of
borders, and
establishment of an empire that will foreshadow its Messianic
redemption are already all revealed to Bilam's perceptive eyes.
PROPHECY AND PROGNOSTICATION
It is indeed striking that the depth of Bilam's discernment, the
quality of his encounters with God, appears to be enhanced with
each unfolding vision. Thus, the first encounter, haphazard and
incidental ('VayiKaR'), is with 'Elohim,' a name of God that signifies
not only power and transcendence, but also remoteness and
inaccessibility. The second encounter is with the more intimate
'Hashem' ('God'), the Sustainer and Supporter of the cosmos. In
the third encounter, a 'spirit of the Lord' comes upon him as he hears
His words and perceives His vision. Finally, in his last encounter,
Bilam also acquires 'knowledge of the Most High,' an expression that
seems to signify an intimate engagement with the Deity.
In perfect consonance with Bilam's prophetic progression,
the text describes in more and more striking language the
exclusivity of the people of Israel. First, they are perceived as a
nation that dwells alone, then they are singled out as a people privy
to God's acts, then they are described as having a unique
relationship with the Deity, and finally they are presented as the
triumphant bearers of His message to humanity.
To the
procession of the two complementary themes of Bilam's personal
journey and the nation of Israel's destiny, we may add a third: the
impotency of magic, sorcery and the occult to affect the fate of the
people of Israel. Thus, Bilam enters the scene as a gifted sorcerer
and seer, but his ostensible powers soon prove wholly inadequate.
In the meantime, the fundamental message that no such powers
can sway God or dictate Israel's fate, is repeatedly hammered
home with increasing intensity.
These three themes of exclusivity, prophecy, and inefficacy of
augury, are actually interwoven. At the most elemental level,
prophecy concerns God's communications to human beings. The
more cohesive the relationship with God, the more intense is the
prophetic experience, and the more obvious how coarse and
ineffectual is divination by comparison. If Bilam speaks of
Israel's potential for exclusivity and intimacy, then he must also
address their unique capacity for prophecy, and at the same time
highlight his own failure to achieve significant results through
prognostication.
THE DONKEY
All of this, of course, leads us back to Bilam's donkey. What
is the meaning of its encounter with the angelic figure, with its
unprecedented speech, and with Bilam's eventual perception of
what it can 'see' all along? Again, we return to the words of the
Ramban:
"The reason for this miracle was to impress upon Bilam that
God is the Bestower of the power of speech, and can even
open the mouth of the 'mute.' Certainly, He can also stop up the
mouth of those who speak, or place in their mouths the words
that He wishes them to speak, for nothing is beyond His ability.
Let not Bilam follow then his magical and mysterious practices
in order to curse the people…" (commentary to 22:23).
On three occasions, the donkey instinctively pauses and refuses
to proceed, sensing that its path is barred. Bilam's secret
desire to honor Balak's request and consequently secure fame
and fortune hangs in the balance, and he is impatient to reach his
destination. With unusual viciousness, he lashes out at the dumb
beast whose behavior seems so inexplicable. Finally, the creature
addresses him in some sort of communication that the text
plainly describes as 'speech.' Bilam engages the donkeyin dialogue
and in the end is granted a vision of the 'angel' that impresses
upon him his accountability to a Higher Power Who will brook no
disobedience to His will. Is this curious encounter not the story of
Bilam's subsequent travails?
On
three occasions, Bilam attempts to circumvent God's
directives, in order to curse the people of Israel. In each case, his
'mouth' is instead filled with blessings that he pronounces against his
natural inclinations. In the end, he is forced to concede that his
powers have no impact against Israel, that God directs his speech,
that he, like the donkey, is nothing more than an instrument in His
hands. The dull-witted, four-legged brute gropes for a glimmer of a
higher truth that God progressively but graciously provides. After
three 'communications,' the donkey is finally able
to speak
intelligible words that loudly proclaim God's involvement and
guidance. Bilam, too, after three 'attempts' to prove otherwise,
must eventually come to the profound realization that all of his
faculties, including the speech that constitutes the very source of his
strength, are subject to God's authority and command. As soon as
he is able to internalize that message, his fourth and final vision of
the ideal Messianic Age must follow, for it is the culmination of the
process.
B) INDEPTH PARSHAT SHEVUAH
I WILL BLESS THOSE WHO BLESS YOU
By Rav Yair Kahn
The story of Balak is inserted into sefer Bemidbar after the
successful campaign against the kingdoms of Sichon and Og. Of
course, this may be merely an accurate chronological description,
assuming that Balak's fears were generated by the total collapse
of these kings' powerful armies (see Rashi). However, one might
add that at this juncture, when the Jewish people are in the final
stages of preparation for entry into the promised land, the Torah
was interested in describing the spiritual victory of Israel over the
dark spiritual forces of the rest of the world, represented by Bilam.
Although the spiritual victory detailed in the final section of
Bilam's prophecy will be fully implemented only in the future "What I see for them is not yet, what I behold will not be soon"
(Bemidbar 24:17) - nevertheless, this victory lies at the root of
Jewish destiny.
The Torah presents us with a fascinating tale touching upon
important theological issues. It is a story pregnant with symbolic
references
and
coded messages.
Before attempting an
interpretation, one must be aware that Torah is not literature, and
only then may one proceed with a sense of humility and an
awareness of the limits of human perception.
Anyone versed in Scripture is familiar with the story of Bilam
and his donkey, however, most people gloss over the enigmatic
section that follows, containing the blessings and prophesies
transmitted through Bilam. I will attempt to explain a certain aspect
of the latter, based upon an analysis of the former. Using this
method, I hope to highlight certain basic issues which I believe the
Torah is trying to convey. What did Bilam attempt to accomplish?
What was God's response? What eternal message does the Torah
wish to transmit in this section?
When reading the story, we are troubled by a basic problem.
The Torah tells us:
That night God came to Bilam and said to him, "If these men
have come to invite you, you may go with them. But whatever I
command you, that you shall do." When he arose in the
morning, Bilam saddled his donkey and departed with the
Moabite dignitaries. But God was incensed at his going; so an
angel of God placed himself in his way as an adversary.
(Bemidbar 22:20-22)
It is not clear what Bilam did to arouse God's anger. He made it
very clear to Balak's emissaries that he was dependent upon God's
wishes, and he refused to join Balak without divine permission.
Rashi (22:20) explains that in some way, Bilam planned to deviate
from the express will of God:
"But whatever I command you, that you shall do" - "But"
means that against your will you shall do what I command you;
nevertheless, "And Bilam went," for he thought, "Perhaps I shall
lead Him astray and He will consent."
When the first group of messengers arrive, God refuses Bilam
permission to join Balak, explaining that Bnei Yisrael are a blessed
nation and should not be cursed.
God said to Bilam, "Do not go with them. You must not curse
that people, for they are blessed." (Bemidbar 22:12)
Why, then, did Bilam repeat his request to God at the behest of
the second group of messengers? Did he really believe that Bnei
Yisrael were no longer blessed simply because Balak had sent a
more impressive entourage? What did he think when God changed
His mind, as it were, and allowed him to travel to Moav?
When Bilam finally embarks on his journey to Moav, God,
through His heavenly angel and a verbal donkey, wishes to convey
to Bilam that he has no personal freedom in this matter. Just like the
donkey, he merely must repeat that which God places in his mouth
(see Ramban). However, we are immediately struck by the
repeated attempts leading up to Bilam's eye-opening encounter with
the angel. The donkey manages to circumvent the angel twice,
until she is finally brought to a stop on the third encounter. What is
the Torah trying to tell us by reporting the failed attempts? Is the
Torah informing us that God sent an incompetent angel who
managed to connect only after two strikes? Or is the Torah
educating us regarding the stubbornness of donkeys?
Let us take a closer look at the angel's two failed attempts to
stop Bilam. In the first encounter, the angel blocks the path with
sword drawn. The donkey manages to continue by leaving the
path, venturing into the field and circumventing the danger. Bilam
then beats the donkey to return him to the path.
We already noted that the donkey's miraculous speech indicates
that, just as the donkey merely verbalizes the sounds that God
places in her mouth, so too Bilam has no choice but to repeat that
which is put in his mouth by the Almighty. We therefore may
assume that the donkey in the entire episode represents Bilam (Bilam
himself may be playing the role of Balak). In fact, doesn't the donkey
act exactly like Bilam? God prohibits him from placing a curse on
Bnei Yisrael because they are blessed. However, instead of
stopping, Bilam tries to circumvent God's will and paradoxically avoid
the Omnipresent's eye, in order to place a curse the Jewish
people. Bilam at this juncture believes his words have power
independent of God. If only he can escape the path and the view of
God, he will succeed in bringing calamity on the Jewish nation.
Bilam's heresy was already detected by Rashi at the beginning of
our parasha. When the first entourage from Moav arrived, God
appeared to Bilam in a dream and asked: "What do these people
want of you?" (Bemidbar 22:9). Rashi comments:
"He came to mislead him. He said apparently at times not
everything is known to him ... [and therefore Bilam thought,] 'I
shall find a time that I will be able to curse them and He will not
understand.'"
The first prophecy placed in Bilam's mouth counters this idea
explicitly. God notes the absurdity of this position as He forces
Bilam to proclaim:
How can I curse who God has not cursed, how doom when
7
the Lord has not doomed? (Bemidbar 23:8)
It is preposterous even to entertain the possibility of bringing a curse
upon a nation blessed by God. Moreover, it is ridiculous to attempt
to escape the presence of God:
"Where can I escape from Your spirit? Where can I flee from
Your Presence? If I ascend to the heaven, You are there; if I
descend to Sheol, You are there too." (Tehillim 139:7-8)
The angel tries to stop Bilam a second time. He chooses a
place enclosed by fences on both sides; there is no possibility of
straying from the path. Nevertheless, the donkey manages to
pass the angel by squeezing to one side of the path in order to
avoid the sword of the celestial messenger. If we continue our
approach, viewing the donkey as symbolizing Bilam, it seems that
the Torah is hinting at a second tactic Bilam employs. Even if he
cannot hide from God and must remain on the path, he may
nonetheless succeed in sidestepping God's will.
He might be
successful in finding some alternative which will enable him to
place a curse on Bnei Yisrael.
Again we find that Rashi detected Bilam's position at the
beginning of the parasha. When the second group of emissaries
arrived and God assented to Bilam's request, allowing him to
travel to Moav, He warned Bilam that he was free to say only that
which God would place in his mouth. According to Rashi, Bilam
embarked on the journey because he believed that he would
succeed in somehow influencing this divine decision, and thereby
be allowed to place a curse on Bnei Yisrael - "Perhaps I shall lead
Him astray and He will consent."
The second prophecy contains an explicit rejection of this
possibility. Before this prophecy, Bilam makes a renewed attempt at
placing a curse on the Jewish people, although he has already been
informed that they are a blessed nation. Balak tries to help him by
finding a nlocation from which only a segment of Bnei Yisrael can
be viewed.
Then Balak said to him, "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 - curse them for me from there."
(Bemidbar 23:13)
Bilam had been forced to concede that the Jewish people as an
entirety, a complete organic entity, is blessed. But, he thought, it
may be possible to sidestep this problem by placing a curse on a
limited section of the nation. Although the nation as a unit is
blessed, it is reasonable to assume that this does not include
every individual. Nevertheless, Bilam's attempt at altering the will
of God is rebuffed.
God is not man to be capricious, or mortal to change His mind.
Would He speak and not act, promise and not fulfill? My
message was to bless: When He blesses, I cannot reverse it.
(Bemidbar 23:19-20)
The divine decision to bless the Jewish people remains intact, and
the tactics of Balak and Bilam will not succeed in qualifying the
divine will.
Despite being beaten for a second time, Bilam prods the donkey
to continue the journey. The donkey continues until she meets
God's messenger for the third and final time. She finds herself
totally surrounded with no possibility of avoiding the angel's sword.
She stops dead in her tracks and refuses to advance. She has
finally acknowledged that she cannot but comply with the will of God
as expressed by the angel.
Similarly, we find that prior to the third prophecy, in spite of
Balak's prodding, Bilam submits himself to God's will.
Now Bilam, seeing that it pleased the Lord to bless Israel, did
not, as on previous occasions, go in search of omens, but
turned his face toward the wilderness. (Bemidbar 24:1)
It is only at this point that Bilam finally surrenders himself to the
Almighty. He can neither escape God's presence nor alter His will.
He must humbly accept the divine decision.
At this juncture, we are confronted by a basic problem which
lies at the very core of our parasha. How are we to understand the
entire concept of blessing and curse? Why should human utterance
have any significance? If one is worthy, we would expect divine
justice to bestow blessings upon him, whether or not humanly
blessed. The reverse is true with respect to one who is unworthy.
In what way can man intervene and influence the Almighty? What
role is played by the human word? What was the basis of Bilam's
power to bless and curse, if ultimately only the divine will is
relevant?
A complete discussion of this difficult topic is beyond the scope
of this shiur. However, I would like to present a gemara (Avoda Zara
4a-b) that seems to address this issue.
Our Rabbis taught: "God is angry every day" (Tehillim
7:12), but how long does His anger last? - A moment. And how
long is a moment? - One 53,848th of an hour is a moment. No
creature could ever precisely fix this moment except Bilam the
wicked, of whom it is written, "who knew the knowledge of the
Most High" (Bemidbar 24:16). Is that possible? He did not know
the mind of his animal; how could he have known the mind of
the Most High!? ... What, then, is the meaning of "He knew the
knowledge of the Most High?" - He knew the exact hour when
the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry. This indeed, is what the
Prophet is alluding to when he says (Mikha 6:5), "O my people,
remember now what Balak king of Moav consulted, and what
Bilam son of Beor answered him from Shittim unto Gilgal; that
you may know the righteousness of the Lord." Said R. Eleazar:
The Holy One, blessed by He, said to Israel: O my people,
see how many righteous acts I did for you, in that I abstained
from anger all those days, for had I been in anger, none would
have remained or been spared of Israel. This, too, is what
Bilam refers to when he says, "How can I curse, seeing that
God does not curse, and how can I be wrathful, seeing that the
Lord has not been wrathful?" (23:8). And how long does His
wrath last? - A moment [rega]. And how long is a rega? Said
Amemar (others say, Rabina): As long as it takes to utter this
word. And whence do we know that His wrath lasts a moment? Because it is written, "For his anger is for a moment, His
favour is for a life-time" ... When is He wrathful? - Said Abaye:
During the first three hours, when the comb of the cock is white.
And is it not white at all other times? - At other times it has red
streaks, at that time there are no red streaks in it.
Without attempting to interpret the details introduced in this
passage, it seems clear that Bilam's power to curse was
associated by our sages with the "midat ha-din," the divine attribute
focusing on absolute justice and truth. According to the above
gemara, this attribute finds its purest expression during a fleeting
moment within the first three hours of the day. At that instant, Bilam
succeeded in placing a curse.
It would appear that Chazal understood the concept of blessing
and curse within the parameters of "midat ha- din" (strict justice) and
"midat ha-rachamim" (the divine attribute
associated
with
compassion).
These two attributes, which seem contradictory
from the limited perspective of finite man, somehow coexist within
God, and together describe His involvement with the world.
A
blessing is ineffective where it is totally unwarranted. It can only
appeal to the "midat ha-rachamim," which may result in a response
reflecting God's compassion and loving-kindness. Conversely, a
curse merely appeals to the "midat ha-din" and demands an
uncompromising and exacting response, but does not cross the
boundary of justice.
Rashi (22:21) notes that the impossibility of placing a curse
on the Jewish people is rooted in our father Avraham.
"And [Bilam] saddled his donkey" - God said: Scoundrel,
Avraham their father has already preceded you, as it says
(Bereishit 22), "And Avraham awoke early in the morning and
saddled his donkey."
According to our approach, it is specifically Avraham and the legacy
he imparted to his children that protect them from the "midat ha-din."
After all, Avraham is renowned for his kindness and sensitivity.
Give kindness to Avraham, which you have promised to our
fathers from days of yore. (Mikha 7:20)
God shows his compassion and loving-kindness to those who act
with kindness.
With a kind man You will perform kindness. (II Shemuel
22:26)
Therefore, the children of Avraham, who continue his legacy, are
protected from harsh expressions of exacting justice. Hence, they
may be blessed, but can never be cursed.
I will bless those who bless you, and curse him that curses you.
(Bereishit 12:3)
C) SICHAT ROSH YESHIVA
Harav Yehuda Amital Shlit"A
SELECTIVE CONFRONTATION:THE ROLE OF THE MODERN
JEWISH LEADER PART 1 OF 2
With the destruction of the Second Temple, the Nation of Israel
began what was to become a long and cruel exile. Our ancestors
were forced to move constantly, traversing endless miles in
search of some friendly country which would allow them to
remain within its borders. Wherever they went, the Jews were
never permitted to remain for long, and they were constantly
emigrating from city to city, and from country to country in the
attempt to find one place which they might call their own. One
generation established roots while the next was forced to sever
them and continue the relentless search for yet another temporary
refuge. Each new city, every new country that the Jews entered
forced them to weigh new values, ethics, culture and customs
against their own.
One of the greatest challenges that these Jews faced was how to
sustain the values of their own religion during their constant
displacement. How could they preserve the Torah in its
totality, constantly maintaining the ethical and moral standards
that the Torah demanded, while living among a foreign people and
within an alien culture which was often diametrically opposed to
the Torah's values?
This problem has taken on special significance in the last century,
in light of the Holocaust and the subsequent founding of the
State of Israel.
Although our nation is at present experiencing the long awaited
"kibbutz galuyot" - the ingathering of the exiles - many Jewish
communities still function and thrive in a foreign atmosphere, often
finding themselves bereft of traditional Jewish values. Another,
more serious, factor has served to compilcate the problems that
these communities face in their battle to live at one with the
modern world while striving to maintain a Jewish identity. I am
referring to the swift changes that take place in our world, changes
that often leave us feeling somewhat superfluous in our relations
with the world at large. A sense of alienation sets in, where the
individual is no longer sure of those values, morals and ideals that
he once took for granted. In our modern world culture, ideas,
ideals, the worth and importance of values, all change at a pace
that is simply too overwhelming for the individual to comprehend.
If such changes remained in the realm of physical and material
values; if the demand of material success was the only one that
modern man had to live up to; if the competition along life's long
and often arduous journey were limited to mere accumulation of
wealth and comfort, then perhaps we would be able to face the
modern world with a great deal more confidence and ability.
However, our world demands not only a change in the realm of the
material, but taxes the spiritual world as well. The spiritual wellbeing of each individual is no longer a hidden aspect of his
being; rather, it is being constantly challenged, and the values he
once upheld as true and eternal become enveloped in
doubt. Suddenly, the individual finds that his once secure
metaphysical world has been breached and he watches helplessly
as it slowly dissolves in a mass of unrequited dreams. With no
objective, spiritual standard by which to judge himself and his
surroundings, the individual is lost, and consequently the meaning
in one's life becomes a mass of uncertainty and riddles.
We as Jews are facing a twofold problem. First, it is incumbent
upon us to transplant the values inherent in the Torah into our
mundane, everyday existence despite the constant change taking
place around us. Second, we must be secure in our dedication to
the values of the Torah, so that we can be assured that these
values will maintain their fundamental meaning even when facing
the challenge of foreign lifestyles and cultures.
The Zohar calls the "taryag mitzvot" (613 commandments
of the Torah) the "taryag eitim," which means "commandments of
counsel and advice." According to this perspective, one must view
the entire gamut of mitzvot as a continuous process of counsellng
one on how to contend with a world that often places itself in
direct opposition to the values of Judaism. As the Zohar subtly tells
us, the commandments are there to help man confront a world that
is antagonistic to the ideals of righteousness, charity, justice, mercy,
humility and fear of God. The qualities we call "derekh Hashem" "the path of God" - seem to change in meaning from era to era, place
to place, day to day, hour to hour, in a world ignorant of Torah.
Different situations and changing times give these values new
forms and meaning. The problem is not insuring that these
mitzvot,
these commandments of counsel and advice, remain
effective in all times and places. The Torah has proven again and
again its own worth and eternal wisdom. Rather, the problem is
our ability to safeguard our people, and protect them from all the
pitfalls that confront them in their dealings with the modern world
and its confusing range of ideals and values.
Perhaps we can single out two specific commandments to
illustrate the problems that face us in the modern world. The first
is the mitzva of "machatzit ha-shekel" - the donation of half a shekel
to the Temple every year, and the second is "Tu Bi-Shevat," the
New Year for plants.
The half shekel donated to the Temple pays for the upkeep and
running of the Temple; the Halakha tells us that a korban tzibbur
(congregational sacrifice) offered at the Temple must be brought in
the name of the entire people of Israel. Each individual has a part
in the congregational sacrifice, because these sacrifices are paid
for with the funds collected in the donation of the half shekel. On the
other hand, another halakha tells us that if there is any money left
over from the previous year, these funds are not allowed to be
used for the purchase of sacrifices during the current year.
Sacrifices must be purchased and offered only during their
allotted time (see Rambam, Hilkhot Shekalim 4:10- 12).
A similar idea is expressed within the laws that pertain to Tu
Bi-Shevat. The central theme of this holiday is the seperation of
the teruma and ma'aser (the portions set aside for the Priest and
Levite) from the current crop. Here again the halakha informs us
that we cannot use fruit from the previous year in the
determination of what must be set aside for teruma and ma'aser.
Tu Bi-Shevat, the New Year for Trees, marks the cutting-off point,
and from that point the farmer may determine his yearly crop yield
(see Rambam, Hilkhot Teruma 5:11; Hilkhot Ma'aser 1:70; Mishna
Rosh HaShana 1:1).
Both commandments revolve around the central thesis that one
can offer or count only those objects that belong to the present the here and now - as part of the mitzva. Use of old funds or fruits
from a previous year is not considered to be a fulfillment of the
mitzva. These commandments teach us the necessity of constant
awareness of the time and place in which we function. Yet we are
also commanded to serve God without deviating in any way from the
Torah which He has given us.
How can we achieve such an ideal state? How can one remain
aware of what goes on around him, living in the present, without
becoming receptive to negative influences exerted upon him
daily? Is it at all possible for the individual to remain within the four
walls of the Torah, while functioning in a world alien to those very
precepts that the Torah espouses?
Throughout the exile people have grappled with this very
problem. It would seem that we have found three methods which
we may apply in order to preserve our identities as Jews. Each
method met with a varying degree of success and failure, yet the
first two seem to have only succeeded for the unique individuals
within our midst.
The first method is for one to sever himself completely and
totally from the world around him, rejecting out of hand anything
that the outside world might - be it a positive or negative influence.
This method considers any idea or value that has emerged in an
alien atmosphere to present a direct challenge to the Torah, and is
thus invalid. There is no doubt that many of those who adopt such
a method in dealing with the outside world can point to some
success within a short period of time. Yet in the long run this
method can prove very detrimental to those who live by such rules.
For it tends not only to cut people off from the outside world, but
from the rest of the Jewish people as well. By its nature, it causes
friction and leaves those who live by such a method to detest
anyone who does not come into their fold.
The second method is more radical and enjoys less success
than the first. While acknowledging the existence of the world
around him, and at times even displaying understanding for it, the
individual chooses to wage an all-out war on those ideals and
values that are not in congruence with the Torah. This route
envelops the individual in total seclusion, yet also leaves him no
rest and pits him against impossible odds. It forces him to live with
constant friction and enmity, conducting what he believes to be a
holy war to protect the Torah. It is a route that is doomed to failure,
if only because a human being cannot function within a
8
constant environment of hostility and antagonism.
The third course upon which one might embark is neither an
effort at total seclusion nor an insistence upon waging war on
society. It is one that might be summed up in the term "selective
confrontation." There are many reasons for choosing such a course
of action. It will help to avoid (to some extent) those great
problems of faith that have plagued our people throughout the last
century. It will, as well, offer a practicable alternative in which the
masses of Jews will feel a desire and need to return to a Jewish
way of life, abandoning the foreign ideas and values which have
been inplanted in its stead.
Selective confrontation allows one to remain aware of the world
that functions outside of Judaism, and then to weigh those values
against those which Judaism has to offer.
In the Kabbalistic
phrase, it is the process of "ha'alat ha-nitzozot," the raising of the
sparks of holiness inherent in all people. The process itself is one
that serves to differentiate between those values which can add to
the richness of a Jewish life, and those values which remain
diametricelly opposed to Judaism. It is a sifting of ideas, while
synthesizing and accepting only those virtues and ideals which
remain in congruence with what the Torah and Halakha demand of
the Jew. This refining process guarantees that the negative
aspects cannot and will not enter and possibly tarnish or defile the
Law.
One can then clothe and incorporate the good within an
amicable atmosphere willing to accept it.
Maimonides, in his "Epsitle to Yemen," expressed his opinion
regarding the imbuing of foreign ideas and values into Judaism. He
explains that the verse, "No weapon that is formed against thee
shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in
judgment thou shalt condemn" (Yishayahu 54:17), is referring to
the methods which the gentile world applies in its battle with
Judaism. The first method is the use of physical force, in
oppression and war. The second method is more metaphysical,
where the art of dialectical argument, propaganda and debate is
used to wield influence upon the Jewish people.
The prophet
informs us that God has promised that neither of these methods
will succeed. As Isaiah continues in the same verse, "This is the
heritage of the servants of the Lord and the recompense of their
righteousness appointed by Me, says the Lord."
I am well aware of the dangers of embarking upon such a path specifically because it forces upon the individual a terrible
obligation, one which causes constant confrontation and selection
between cultures and values. Yet it will surely help alleviate many
of the dangerous problems and enigmas of faith with which our
people have found themselves challenged, especially during the
last century.
[To be continued next week.]
(This speech was delivered at the Dinner for Yeshivat Har Etzion in
New York, in Kislev 5741 [1980].)

8 BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY
A project of Bar-Ilan University's Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene hulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the
Office of the Campus Rabbi. Sponsored by Dr. Ruth Borchard of the Shoresh Charitable Fund (SCF). Published with
assistance of the President's Fund for
Torah and Science.Web Site: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha
ON ENTERING THE SYNAGOGUE WITH A KNIFE OR WEAPON
Prof. Yaakov Spiegel Department of Talmud
On the basis of the verse at the conclusion of this week's reading,
"When Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, saw this, he
left the assembly and, taking a spear in his hand, ..." (Numbers 25:7)
the Sages arrived at the following interpretation (Sanhedrin 82a):
"Hence we conclude that one is not to enter the Temple carrying
arms." According to Rashi, this is deduced as follows: the word
assembly ('eda) means Sanhedrin, for the High Court was sitting and
deliberating the capital case of those who had gone over to Baal
Peor. The Rabbis considered that Scripture was alluding to the
Sanhedrin, which convened in the Temple area, and Phinehas
therefore was in the Temple during this event. Since Scripture says of
Phinehas that he "left ... and took ..." it follows, according to Rashi,
that prior to that time Phinehas did not have a spear in is hands and
that he had to take specific action in order to get the spear in his
hands. Thus we conclude that one is not to enter a court - or a Beit
Midrash - carrying a weapon.
This rule was applied here to a Beit Midrash. Tractate Megillah
(27a) indicates that we follow the view that the sanctity of a Beit
Midrash is stricter than that of a synagogue. Maimonides ruled
(Tefillah 11.24) as follows: "A synagogue may be turned into a Beit
Midrash, but a Beit Midrash may not be turned into a synagogue,
since the sanctity of a Beit Midrash exceeds that of a synagogue, and
one may increase sanctity but not decrease it. The Tur and the
Shulhan Arukh ruled likewise (Orah Hayyim 153.1). Thus there were
grounds for saying that proscription against entering with weapons
applies only when entering a Beit Midrash, whose level of sanctity is
greater; but when entering a synagogue, one could argue, carrying
weapons is permissible. The posekim, however, ruled that bringing
weapons into a synagogue is also forbidden, as we shall see below.
Rabbi Joseph Caro wrote in Beit Yosef (Orah Hayyim 151,
Machon Yerushalayim ed., p. 80) as follows:
It is written in Orhot Hayyim (Hilkhot Beit ha-Knesset 7) in the
name of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (Tashbetz Katan[1] 202), that one
may not enter the synagogue with a long knife, since prayer
lengthens a person's days and a knife shortens them; and entering
with one's pouch is also forbidden, as it is said (Mishna Berakhot
54a), one may not enter the Temple Mount with a money-belt. The
gloss on this by Rabbi Peretz (Tashbetz, loc. sit.) says that
'nevertheless one should not be concerned except with the head
being uncovered' (end quote). And Masekhet Soferim (14.15) says
that 'a person with a bare head is not to mention the name of G-d'
(end quote).
Thus, in the opinion of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, a great
Ashkenazi rabbi of the 13th century, one may not enter a
synagogue with a knife. His opinion, apparently, was based on the
Sages' homily in the Mekhilta (end of Parashat Jethro), [2] which is
also cited by Rashi:
"And if you make for Me an altar of stones, do not build it of hewn
stones; for by wielding your tool [lit. "sword"] upon them you have
profaned them" (Ex. 20:22). Hence Rabbi Simeon b. Eleazar used to
say that the altar was created to prolong a person's life, and iron was
created to shorten a person's life; one may not wield that which
shortens [life] upon that which prolongs [it].
Rabbi Rothenburg's remarks are founded on the same idea. For
it says in the Talmud that prayer prolongs life,[3] and that being so, it
is unfitting for something which shortens [life] to be wielded upon that
which prolongs it.
We see from the above that also a synagogue may not be
entered when carrying a knife. Rabbi Rothenburg may not have
wanted to rely on Tractate Sanhedrin 82a for this prohibition, since
that passage refers to a Beit Midrash; hence he wished to prove that
also in a synagogue, which is of lesser sanctity, this proscription
applies.[4]
Now let us examine in greater detail the gloss by Rabbi Peretz,
mentioned above by R. Joseph Caro. Rabbi Peretz of Corbeil, among
the last of the Tosafists, also wrote glosses on Tashbetz, in which he
expressed his opinion on certain subjects. Here, too, as we have
said, he wrote: "Nevertheless one should not be concerned except
with the head being uncovered." Below we shall see how later rabbis
understood his gloss.
The Shulhan Arukh 151.6 says:
One may enter a synagogue with one's staff, one's pouch, and
one's money-belt; some forbid entering with a long knife or with an
uncovered head.
In Eliah Rabbah Rabbi Eliah Shapira wrote:
This is a strange opinion, for nothing is mentioned in O.H. (Orhot
Hayyim, which is the source that Beit Yosef cited for this halakhah)
about the head being uncovered. I looked in Kolbo (Venice, 1547), p.
10 (sect. 17), who cited [O.H.] as follows: 'nevertheless, one is not to
be concerned unless it is uncovered,' end quote. Similarly [is the
quote] in Tashbetz 202. Thus, in my opinion, clearly he was speaking
about a knife or money-belt actually being exposed, but if they are
concealed, one may enter with them; and he was not writing at all
about being bare headed. The views of the authors of Shulhan Arukh,
the Levush, and the aharonim (later rabbinic authorities) are puzzling.
Rabbi Eliah was asking about the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh
which is based, of course, on the glosses of Rabbi Peretz. In his
opinion, the words of Rabbi Peretz had been misunderstood. After all,
Rabbi Peretz was referring to things written by Rabbi Meir of
Rothenburg, which are cited in Orhot Hayyim; but Orhot Hayyim
makes no mention of the head being bare. Therefore Rabbi Eliah
questioned what Rabbi Peretz was commenting about.
Rabbi Eliah looked back at the Tashbetz itself and found that
Rabbi Peretz is cited differently in this source: "Nevertheless one is
not to be concerned unless [it is] uncovered" (without the word
"head"); the same wording appears in Kolbo. Now Rabbi Peretz is
understandable; Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg forbade entering the
synagogue when carrying a knife, without making any qualifications.
Rabbi Peretz came along and explained that the prohibition only
applies when the knife is exposed. Therefore Rabbi Eliah concluded
that the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh, that some people forbid entering
the synagogue with a knife, is incorrect and that, moreover, it is
surprising that subsequent rabbinic authorities followed his lead.
Rabbi Eliah was challenged by the Hida [R. H.Y.D. Azulai] in his
work, Birkei Yosef, loc. sit. In brief, he argued that Rabbi Eliah had
not had access to Orhot Hayyim, but now that this book had come
out in print,[5] we observe that the wording there is the same as that
cited in Beit Yosef. One cannot rely on the formulation in Kolbo, as
Rabbi Eliah did, since the Kolbo is an abridgement of Orhot Hayyim,
and, as we have said, the wording in Orhot Hayyim[6] is the same as
that which we have, with the word 'head'; therefore the Kolbo must
contain a scribal error.
According to R. Hida, one must say that the error is in the Kolbo
and not in Orhot Hayyim, for Orhot Hayyim immediately continues
with a passage from Masekhet Soferim that deals with going bareheaded; thus we see that the version which read "with head
uncovered" is indeed correct.[7] On this basis R. Hida said that R.
Peretz meant to rule that one may enter the synagogue with a knife,
a pouch, and the like, and only forbade entering the synagogue bareheaded (i.e., without a kippa or a hat). Rabbi Peretz saw fit to
emphasize the point about being bare-headed since the approach of
Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, as R. Hida proves, was that entering the
synagogue bare-headed was a "mild" prohibition, considered an act
of piety (middat hasidut). Therefore Rabbi Peretz saw fit to stress the
prohibition here.
We can add further that today printed editions are available of
Hiddushei Mahari Abohav on the Tur, Orah Hayyim, based on the
manuscript.[8] All the words of Orhot Hayyim that were cited by Beit
Yosef appear there, in exactly the same formulation. Thus we have
additional evidence in support of Rabbi Hida's contention that one
should notemend the words of Rabbi Peretz and it appears that the
Hida was correct in his understanding of Rabbi Peretz.
However, further explanation of Rabbi Peretz' words are to be
found in Rabbi Y. M. Epstein's Arukh ha-Shulhan. In section 151.10
he writes as follows:
It is not clear what one has to do with the other (i.e., what
connection there is between a knife and a bare head); moreover,
entering the synagogue bare-headed is forbidden in any case
(meaning this proscription was already explained in Shulhan Arukh,
loc. sit., sect. 91; that being so, what was the Shulhan Arukh adding
here?).[9] Thus we agree with those who say it should be understood
as follows: 'with a long knife and head uncovered' (thus, and not "or
with a head"); that is to say, when the knife itself is uncovered and
not in a pouch, for when it is in a pouch it is permitted (Eliyah
9
Rabba, 110). Therefore it says, accurately, 'with a long knife', since a
short one could be hidden under one's garments or in one's
pouch.[10]
According to Arukh ha-Shulhan there is no need to emend the
words of Rabbi Peretz, as Rabbi Eliah had done; rather, one should
interpret his words as meaning "if the head is revealed," referring to
the knife itself. In other words, only in the event that the knife is
exposed,[11] is it forbidden to enter the synagogue. Accordingly, the
remark of Rabbi Peretz relates directly to the words of Rabbi Meir of
Rothenburg, and hence they are comprehensible, unlike the
understanding of Rabbi Eliah. In the opinion of Arukh ha-Shulhan, if
we make a slight emendation in the words of the Shulhan Arukh
(reading "and [Heb.u-] with head" instead of the text which we have,
"or [Heb. o-] with head"), then they too accord with what was said by
Rabbi Peretz.
It follows from what Arukh ha-Shulhan says that Rabbi Hida's
testimony from the wording in Orhot Hayyim does not contradict his
suggestion, so one could say that the approach of Arukh ha-Shulhan
is similar to that of Eliah Rabbah. Incidentally, it appears that the
author of Arukh ha-Shulhan had not seen Rabbi Hida's work and
therefore in his remarks did not mention that they resolve the difficulty
which Rabbi Hida observed.
Nevertheless one difficulty raised by Rabbi Hida appears not to
have been resolved by the remarks in Arukh ha-Shulhan. Namely,
why does Orhot Hayyim mention immediately after this subject
Masekhet Soferim had written regarding mentioning the name of G-d
with a bare head? According to Arukh ha-Shulhan this is in no way
related to the text that precedes it.
We have presented three ways of reading Rabbi Peretz, which
actually reflect only two different approaches. According to both of
these approaches Rabbi Peretz is more lenient than Rabbi Meir of
Rothenburg, but the question is how much so? According to one
approach, that of Eliah Rabbah and Arukh ha-Shulhan, Rabbi Peretz
forbade entering a synagogue with a knife unless it is concealed. The
second approach, that of Rabbi Hida, holds that Rabbi Peretz did not
forbid entering a synagogue with a knife. To complete the picture, let
us add that also the rabbis of our times have discussed this issue,[12]
except that they extended it to include weapons in use today, such as
guns and pistols. Naturally they also related to the different ways of
reading the remarks of Rabbi Peretz. From what they have written
they appear to have taken a stricter interpretation.[13] That is, from
the outset one should not enter a synagogue carrying arms; but when
one cannot help entering with arms, it is preferable to conceal them.
Only when there is no other option may one rely on the words of
Rabbi Peretz as understood by Rabbi Hida, that one may enter with
no restrictions.
[1] Written by R. Samson b. R. Tzadok, a disciple of R. Meir of Rothenburg, who recorded some of his rabbi’s teachings
in this work. Katan is added to the title to distinguish this work from the responsa of Rabbi Simeon b. R. Tzemah, a 14thcentury rabbi from North Africa, which is also entitled Tashbetz.
[2] This is the source noted by Rabbi Ovadiah
Yosef, Resp. Yehaveh Da'at, Part 5, sect. 18.
[3] The reference is apparently to Berakhot 54b: "Rabbi Judah said three
things, [when done at length] prolong a person's days and years: lengthy prayer, ..." Also cf. Dikdukei Soferim, loc. sit.
[4] This is mentioned by R. E. Waldenberg, Resp. Tzitz Eliezer, Part 10, sect. 18; R. A. Yofe Schlesinger, Resp.
Be'er Sarim, 1978, Part 2, sect. 10; R. O. Yosef, Yehaveh Da'at, Part 5, sect. 18.
[5] The book was first printed in
Florence in 1750, while Rabbi Eliah passed away in 1712. Therefore there is no room for R. Mordechai Karmi's wonder,
as expressed in Maamar Mordechai, sect. 151.2, how it happened that Rabbi Eliah had not seen what was written in Orhot
Hayyim.
[6] This has been discussed at length by the rabbis, but this is not the place to go into details. [7] Rabbi Y.
Z. Kahana, Teshuvot Posekim u-Minhagim la-Maharam me-Rothenburg, Jerusalem 1957, Part 1, p. 150, par. 65, remarked
on the formulation in the printed edition of Orhot Hayyim, which supports Beit Yosef, and did not note that R. Hida had
already observed this. (Incidentally, he compared the version in Orhot Hayyim with the Kolbo, which, as we said, is not to
be done.)
[8] R. Hosea Rabinowitz ed., Jerusalem, 1994.
[9] R. Hida had already responded to this point in his
comments; see loc. sit.
[10] It is remarkable that in Torah Temimah, loc. sit., his son, Rabbi B. Epstein, himself wrote
almost the exact same thing in the very same words (see the next note), but he did not mention what his father had said.
We have previously observed that this was his tendency regarding other books (see my remarks in the Parashat Hashavua
of Parshat Bo, 1999), and here we see this also with respect to his father's teachings. [11] He interprets the "head of the
knife" as the "knife itself", apparently meaning the blade; one should investigate whether this was indeed what he had in
mind. Nevertheless, it should be noted that we have not found such a phrase used to refer to the blade of a knife, so this
interpretation seems to us far-fetched. Note that the author of Torah Temimah wrote in his glosses as follows: "If the head
of the knife is revealed", and by this emendation one could say that he meant even if the head of the knife is revealed, i.e.,
part of the knife is revealed although most of it is concealed, the knife is still considered revealed and may not be taken
into the synagogue. [12] R.
Waldenberg, Resp. Tzitz Eliezer, Part 10, sect. 18; R. E. Yafe Schlesinger, Resp. Be'er
Sarim, 1978, Part 2, sect. 10; R. O. Yosef, Yehaveh Da'at, Part 5, sect. 18. The question is also discussed in several books
dealing with rulings concerning the army and war, such as Hilkhot Tzava by R. Zekhariah ben Shlomo, Yeshivat
Sha'alavim, 1988, p. 75, and others.
[13] One of the reasons for this is that their rulings are not based solely on the
words of R. Peretz, but also cite other posekim on this issue, who agreed that if the knife is covered it is not prohibited,
independently of anything that was said in Eliah Rabbah. They derived this from the stress on a "long knife"; hence it
follows that a short knife which can be covered may be brought into the synagogue.
‫י"א‬

9- AISH HATORA
(C) 1999 Aish HaTorah International - All rights reserved. Email: [email protected] Home Page: http://www.aish.edu
MI-ORAY-HA-AISH (Rabbi Ari Kahn)
email: [email protected] or [email protected] URL:. http://www.jewishsoftware.com/kahn/index.html
THE EVIL EYE
As the children of Israel are encamped in the plains of Moav,
danger looms from outside the camp.
A plot is in formation designed to mortally harm them. The
assault is a strange one -- the conspirators will use spiritual powers to
attack the Jews.
Balak, the king of Moab who is credited with being a significant
diviner in his own right, seeks the assistance of Bil'am, a powerful
seer. Readers of the text have a difficult time understanding how
Bil'am possessed such destructive power in the first place. It seems
peculiar that God should have to get involved in order to frustrate this
nefarious plan and not allow the curse to be uttered.
The traditional explanation is that Bil'am had an "evil eye" 1 and
therefore was theoretically able to attack the Jews. This idea may be
seen in the verses in the numerous references to "eyes" and "sight":
He sent messengers, therefore, to Bil'am, the son of Beor, to
Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the sons of his people,
to call him, saying. "Behold, there is a people come out from
Egypt; behold, they cover the eye 2 of the earth, and they are
dwelling opposite me. Come now therefore, I pray you, curse this
people for me; for they are too mighty for me; perhaps I shall
prevail, that we may defeat them, and that I may drive them out
of the land; for I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he
whom you curse is cursed." (Numbers 22:5-6; see also Numbers
22:10-11,31)
And when Bil'am saw that it pleased the Lord to bless Israel, he
went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set
his face toward the wilderness. And Bil'am lifted up his eyes, and
he saw Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the
spirit of God came upon him. And he took up his
discourse, and said, "The speech of Bil'am, the son of Beor; the
speech of a man whose eyes are open. The speech of him who
heard the words of God, who saw the vision of the Almighty,
falling down, but having his eyes open." (Numbers 24:1-4; see
also Numbers 24:15-16)
The Midrash relates to this quality as characteristic of Bil'am and
his teachings:
From this you can infer that he possessed three qualities, viz. an
evil eye, a haughty spirit, and a greedy soul. How do we know
that he had an evil eye? Because it is written, And Bil'am lifted up
his eyes, and he saw Israel dwelling tribe by tribe. (Numbers
24:2). (Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar 20:10)
THE POWER TO BLESS AND CURSE
This destructive quality of Bil'am may explain a separate problem
presented by Parshat Balak. If Bil'am senses that his attempts to
curse the Jews are being frustrated, then why doesn't he bless Balak
and his people? Either cursing the Jews or blessing the Moabites
should have the same results: a victory for Moab. This question is
predicated on the assumption that Bil'am has the ability to bless and
curse with equal competence. This would seem to be the meaning of
the verse cited above:
For I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you
curse is cursed. (Numbers 22:5,6)
The ability to bless is foreign to Bil'am -- it does not seem to be a
part of his make up. Perhaps the potential was there but the ability to
bless seems to elude him now.
There are some men specially fitted for the transmission of
blessings, as, for instance, a man of "good eye." There are
others, again, who are specially fitted for the transmission of
curses, and curses light wherever they cast their eyes. Such was
Bil'am, who was the fitting instrument of evil and not of good, and
even when he blessed his blessing was not confirmed, but all his
curses were confirmed, because he had an evil eye. (Zohar,
Leviticus 63b)
While the subject of "evil eyes" and similar magical phenomenon
is vast and beyond the scope of this work, perhaps we can try to
penetrate at least a partial understanding of the topic.3
Rabbi Soloveitchik once suggested that there is a difference
between a evil eye which is used in some sources to describe a trait,
and the destructive "evil eye" which is found in other sources. The
latter may be better described as an outlook more than a trait. One
type is internally centered, while the other is aimed at the outside
toward others.
GOOD EYE VS. EVIL EYE
The Mishna in Avot recalls a conversation between Rav
Yochanan ben Zakkai and his prized disciples. He asks them to
discern a major trait to which a person should cling:
He [Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai] said unto them: "Go forth and
observe which is the good way unto which a man should cleave?"
Rabbi Eliezer said, "A good eye." ... He [further] said unto them:
"Go forth and observe which is the evil way from which a man
should remove himself far?" Rabbi Eliezer said, "An evil eye."
(Avot 2:9.)
Rabbenu Yona in his comments to the Mishna identifies the
"good eye" or the "evil eye" in this context as a trait. To feel miserly is
a manifestation of this negative trait. To be generous is a
manifestation of the positive "good eye." Perhaps the paradigmatic
example of the "good eye" would be Abraham. His kindness was
ingrained to the core of his being and was not merely an outer
directed behavior, lacking inner spiritual consistency. In a later
Mishna in Avot we are told a "good eye" is prominently included in
the description of traits of "students of Abraham." What is interesting
in this context, is how Abraham's students' traits are contrasted with
the traits of disciples of Bil'am.
Whoever possesses these three things, he is of the disciples of
Abraham, our father; and [whoever possesses] three other
things, he is of the disciples of Bil'am, the wicked. The disciples
of Abraham, our father, [possess] a good eye, an humble spirit
and a lowly soul. The disciples of Bil'am, the wicked, [possess] an
evil eye, a haughty spirit and an over-ambitious soul. (Avot 5:19)
The meaning of "evil eye" is not immediately clear in this context.
Is it the destructive evil eye, or is it the trait which would serve as a
better counter balance to the "good eye" of Abraham and disciples?
Because of the mention of Bil'am one would be tempted to
associate the evil eye with Bilaam's destructive power. However, the
text is surely easier to understand where the two types of disciples
are contrasted. Furthermore, all the items listed in this Mishna sound
like traits.
Therefore, we may conclude that Bil'am possessed both types of
evil eye, the negative personality trait in addition to the destructive
outlook. The classical "evil eye" which mesmerizes and haunts alike,
and causes people to automatically say bli ein hara, is somewhat
more elusive.
THE POWER OF JOSEPH
We are told that there are people who were impervious to its
nefarious power, namely Joseph and his children or "students." 4
Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine above the eye (Genesis
44:22). This teaches that the evil eye has no power over them.
(Midrash Rabbah - Genesis 97) 5
Rabbi Yochanan was accustomed of sitting at the gates of the
bathing place. He said: "When the daughters of Israel come up from
bathing they look at me. and they have children as handsome as I
am." Said the rabbis to him: "Is not the Master afraid of the evil eye?"
He replied: "I come from the seed of Joseph, over whom the evil eye
has no power, as it is written, Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine
above the eye."
Rabbi Judah son of Rabbi Hanina derived it from this text: And let
them multiply like fishes in the midst of the earth. Just as the
fishes [dagim] in the sea are covered by water and the evil eye
has no power over them, so the evil eye has no power over
1
0
the seed of Joseph. Or, if you prefer I can say: "The evil eye has
no power over the eye which refused to feed itself on what did
not belong to it." 6 (Berachot 20a, Baba Metzia 84a, Also see
Sotah 36b)
Rabbi Soloveitchik explained Joseph's invulnerability in the
following manner. Certain people live their lives based on the
comments and perceptions of others. Joseph knew who he was and
had confidence in himself, and did not change according to the
whims of others. Joseph was not "swayed by the crowd." Therefore,
Joseph was not susceptible to the "evil eye."
This is a deeper meaning of the last line in the citation from the
Talmud. Joseph did not live based on things which did not belong to
him therefore the destructive comments of others had no effect.
RABBINIC DREAM THEORY
This idea would have a parallel within rabbinic dream theory. On
the one hand dreams are seen to have a certain affinity with
prophecy. On the other hand dreams can be ignored with no ill
effects. However, if a person receives an interpretation for his dream
then a power is unleashed. In a word, dreams are in the eye of the
beholder.
Rabbi Bana'ah: "There were twenty-four interpreters of dreams in
Jerusalem. Once I dreamt a dream and I went round to all of
them and they all gave different interpretations, and all were
fulfilled, thus confirming that which is said: 'All dreams follow the
mouth.'" (Brachot 55a)
This aspect of dreams is closely associated with prophecy itself.
Often the prophets would receive images or visions and not specific
words. This is known as receiving prophecy through a prism. 7
Moses was the only prophet to receive exclusively words from
God. Therefore, the prophet had a certain amount of leeway in
describing, and interpreting his vision. 8
Theoretically, Bil'am would receive his revelations at night,
therefore in the morning he would be able to interpret his vision using
his own words and create the negativity with his subjective
interpretation. Obviously, if this were the case then the results would
be devastating. 9
BIL'AM VS. MOSES
This understanding allows us to penetrate the strange statement
of the Sages describing the exalted status of Bil'am. The Torah
states:
And there has not arisen since in Israel a prophet like Moses,
whom the Lord knew face to face, Israel. (Deut. 34:10)
The rabbis explain:
And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel (Deut. 34:10):
"In Israel" there had not arisen one like him, but there had arisen
one like him among the nations of the world. This was in order
that the nations of the world might have no excuse for saying:
"Had we possessed a prophet like Moses we should have
worshipped the Holy One, blessed be He." What prophet had
they that was like Moses? Bil'am the son of Beor. There was a
difference, however, between the prophecy of Moses and that of
Bil'am.
There were three features possessed by the prophecy of Moses
which were absent from that of Bil'am:
When He [God] spoke with Moses the latter stood on his feet; as
it says, But as for you, stand you here by Me, and I will speak
unto you, etc. (Deut. 5:28). With Bil'am, however, He only spoke
while the latter lay prone on the ground; as it says, Fallen down,
and his eyes are opened (Numbers 24:4). With Moses He spoke
mouth to mouth; as it says, With him do I speak mouth to mouth
(ib. 12:8), while of Bil'am it says, The saying of him who heareth
the words of God (ib. 24:4), which teaches that He did not speak
with him mouth to mouth. With Moses He spoke face to face, as it
says, And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face (Exodus
33:11), but with Bil'am He spoke only in parables; as is confirmed
by the quotation, And he took up his parable, and said, etc.
(Numbers 23:7). (Midrash Rabbah - Numbers 14:20)
Of all prophets only Bil'am is compared favorably to Moses in
terms of the quality of his prophecy. Though the Midrash takes pains
to differentiate between the two, the very suggestion of a comparison
seems obscene.
However because of Bil'am's misanthropic personality, once it
was established that he must have the ability to prophesize, it was
decreed that he must receive specific words - in order that he have
no leeway in terms of interpretation. While other prophets received
images and visions, their pure souls produced positive true
approximations of the Divine will. The prophetic evil Bil'am could not
be given this ability - especially with his "evil eye." He received direct
words from God, not because he was on a higher level than all the
other Jewish prophets, quite the opposite, because he was on a far
lower level. 10
The Zohar stresses the immense difference between the spiritual
strata enjoyed by Moses, and the lowly Bil'am:
Said Rabbi Yehuda: "As Moses excelled all prophets in Israel in
respect of the superior, holy prophecy, so Bil'am excelled all
other pagan prophets and soothsayers in respect of the inferior,
unholy prophecy. In any case Moses was above, Bil'am below,
and there were numerous stages between them." (Zohar, Exodus
Page 22a)
Bil'am would only be able to prophesize when prostrated. The
Zohar understands this gesture, as if he were reaching down to grab
something from the nether world, or at least something which was
once a part of a higher world. In this context the ,Zohar proceeds and
explains the source of Bil'am's power:
What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that
You visit him? (Psalms 8:5). Rav Shimon said: "[This] was uttered
by those in charge of the world at the time when God expressed
His intention of creating man. He called together various
companies of heavenly angels and stationed them before Him.
He said to them: 'I desire to create man.' They exclaimed,
1
1
'Man abides not in honor, etc. (Psalms 49:13).' God thereupon
put forth His finger and burnt them. He then set other groups
before Him, and said: 'I desire to create man.' They exclaimed,
'What is man that You should remember him? What is the
character of this man?' they asked. He replied: 'Man will be in
Our image, and his wisdom will be superior to yours.'
"When He had created man and he (man) sinned and obtained a
pardon, Uzza and Azael approached Him and said: 'We can
plead justification against You, since the man whom You made
has sinned against You.' He said to them: 'Had you been with
them you would have sinned equally.' And He cast them down
from their high estate in heaven ...
"How are we to explain Bil'am's saying of himself, 'Falling and
with eyes open'? For if this was merely an empty boast, how
comes a false statement in the Torah? And if it is true, how could
that sinner attain to a degree higher than that of all the true
prophets, especially as the holiness from above rests only on a
spot qualified to receive it? The fact is, however, that after God
cast Uzza and Azael down from their holy place, they went astray
after the womenfolk and seduced the world also. It may seem
strange that being angels they were able to abide upon the earth.
" ... Now when God saw that these fallen angels were seducing
the world, He bound them in chains of iron to a mountain of
darkness. Uzza He bound at the bottom of the mountain and
covered his face with darkness because he struggled and
resisted, but Azael, who did not resist, He set by the side of the
mountain where a little light penetrated. Men who know where
they are located seek them out, and they teach them
enchantments and sorceries and divinations. These mountains of
darkness are called the 'mountains of the East,' and therefore
Bil'am said: 'From Aram hath Balak brought me, from the
mountains of the East,' because they both learnt their sorceries
there.
"Now Uzza and Azael used to tell those men who came to them
some of the notable things which they knew in former times when
they were on high, and to speak about the holy world in which
they used to be. Hence Bil'am said of himself: 'who hears the
words of God' not 'the voice of God,' but those things which he
was told by those who had been in the assembly of the Holy
King."
He went on: "And knows the knowledge of the Most High",
meaning that he [Bil'am] knew the hour when punishment
impended over the world and could determine it with his
enchantments.
"Who sees the vision of the Almighty: this vision consisted of the
'fallen and the open of eyes,' that is Uzza, who is called 'fallen'
because he was placed in the darkest depth, since after falling
from heaven he fell a second time, and Azael, who is called 'open
of eye' because he was not enveloped in complete darkness.
Bil'am called both of them 'the vision of the Almighty.' At that time
he was the only man left in the world who associated with them,
and every day he used to be shut up in those mountains with
them." (Zohar, Numbers, Page 208b)
FALLEN ANGELS
The Zohar understands that the knowledge which Bil'am
possessed came from heaven via "fallen angels" 11 who knew the
goings on in heaven. The idea of Bil'am having knowledge of heaven
is also mentioned in the Talmud:
A God that has indignation every day. And how long does this
indignation last? One moment ... And no creature has ever been
able to fix precisely this moment except the wicked Bil'am, of
whom it is written: He knows the knowledge of the Most High.
Now, he did not even know the mind of his animal; how then
could he know the mind of the Most High? The meaning is,
therefore, only that he knew how to fix precisely this moment in
which the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry...
Rabbi Eleazar says: "The Holy One, blessed be He, said to
Israel: 'See now, how many righteous acts I performed for you in
not being angry in the days of the wicked Bil'am. For had I been
angry, not one remnant would have been left of the enemies of
Israel.' And this too is the meaning of what Bil'am said to Balak:
How shall I curse, whom God has not cursed? And how shall I
execrate, whom the Lord has not execrated? (Berachot 7b)
In the course of the normal dealing with the world God would
allow but a moment of anger. This idea seems obscure. One
explanation which I have heard which is attributed to the Hassidic
dynasty of Belz, explains this phenomenon.
Chesed, "kindness," is a wonderful attribute. But even kindness
must have its limits. We know that chesed taken to an extreme is
associated with incest, and illicit sexual relations:
And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his
mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his
nakedness; it is a chesed. And they shall be cut off in the sight of
their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall
bear his iniquity. (Leviticus 20:17; see Rashi)
Chesed is wonderful, but too much chesed can be destructive.
On a normal basis God holds back one moment a day from chesed,
and allows strictness in order to help man avoid this spiritual pitfall.
However, on that day while Balak and Bil'am were plotting and trying
to harm the Jews there was not even a moment of judgement - only
chesed.
SEDUCTION AND CHESED
Now we can understand the end of Parshat Balak. After Bil'am
and Balak give up on cursing the Jews we find that the daughters of
Moab have made their way to the camp of the Israelites.
And Israel stayed in Shittim, and the people began to commit
harlotry with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people
to the sacrifices of their gods; and the people ate, and bowed
down to their gods. And Israel attached himself to Baal-Peor; and
the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. (Numbers 25:13)
Too much chesed allowed the appearance of illicit relations,
perhaps Bil'am learned this idea from his erstwhile heavenly mentors.
They too had turned God's gift for chesed and compassion into
depraved relations on earth. The Jews -- who were truly students of
Abraham, and therefore had a "good eye" -- allowed these wayward
women into their camp. In this instance a moment of strictness would
have been in order. Bil'am saw that the Jewish camp is based on a
"good eye" and the spiritual barometer pointed to a forecast of
excessive chesed. Bil'am used the Jew's gifts and good traits against
them. In this instance the community should have shown restraint,
and understood, that as God has a moment of strictness so must the
Jewish community. 12
How ironic - while the "evil eye" did not harm them, the "good
eye" did.
NOTES
1.
2.
See Rashi 24:2
The Hebrew here is "eye" some English translations prefer the term "face of the
Earth". However, the Midrash clearly renders the word "eye." (Midrash Rabbah Numbers 20:7
3.
Zohar, Genesis, Page 68b
4.
It is interesting, that when he was younger Joseph was susceptible to the Evil Eye:
Midrash Rabbah - Genesis 89:10
5.
Zohar 2:225a Observe, likewise, that no evil eye had any power over the seed of
Joseph
6.
The Zohar has a different explanation for Joseph's imperviousness to the "evil eye":
Zohar, Numbers, Page 202b
7.
See Zohar Genesis, Page 183a
8.
Chagiga 13b
9.
Significantly rejecting a bad dream is directly related to God's frustration of Bil'am
and his visions. (Berachot 55b
10. This idea may be found in the Or Gidalya, see the discussion there (Parshat Balak)
and the teachings taught in the name of Rav Diskin.
11. See Genesis 6:4 in reference to the Nifilim, and the comments of the Targum
Yonatan
12. Perhaps this is the connection between the death of the 24,000 as a result of the
plague (25:9) for displaying too much chesed, and the death of the 24,000 students
of Rabbi Akiva (Yevamot 62b) who died because they did not perform enough
chesed
MAYANOT (by Rabbi Noson Weisz)
THE LOOKING-GLASS WAR
At first glance, Parshat Balak seems difficult to relate to from the
perspective of the modern person.
A frightened, superstitious, primitive monarch, Balak, hires the
services of an evil wizard to place a curse on the head of his enemy,
the Jewish people.
The wizard, Bilam, following extensive negotiations with God over
permission to take on the job, and with Balak over the terms of his
employment, finally accepts the commission and sets out on the road
to deliver his curse.
On his way he has a seemingly pointless encounter with a talking
donkey and is admonished by an angel who seems to have been left
out of the loop by God and does not know Bilam has God's
permission.
In the end Bilam's mission is foiled and he ends up blessing the
Jews instead of cursing them. The entire story seems straight out of
"Grimm's Fairy Tales."
But on closer examination, not only does the story make sense in
its own context, we also seem to be mirroring the current situation in
modern day Israel.
THE BIBLICAL CONTEXT
First the Biblical context:
Lacking the military prowess to contend successfully against the
Jewish might -- demonstrated by the victories over the mighty
Amorite armies of Sichon and Og - Balak, King of Moab, was
desperately seeking an equalizer.
His intelligence service informed him that the secret of Israeli
success was primarily spiritual. It was the prospect of confrontation
with Israel's spiritual might that his people found so hopelessly
demoralizing. They were willing to face the Israeli army, which was
untrained and unprofessional and merely a single generation away
from 210 years of Egyptian slavery, but it seemed futile to contend
with the God of Israel. Balak reasoned that against a spiritual power
you need your own spiritual weapon.
Bilam was a world-famous wizard. His presence in Balak's camp
was a sure-fire morale booster. Bolstered by the spiritual power of
their own link to God, the Moabites would be emboldened to face the
enemy physically. Balak could only profit by hiring Bilam whether his
curses proved effective or not.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh explains that this was the reason
Balak sent the low-level delegation that God instructed Bilam to
dismiss the first time around. In modern terms he sent well-known
journalists instead of public officials. He wanted the maximum public
exposure of the mission to Bilam, because he needed the mileage of
a powerful morale booster more than he needed the actual spiritual
powers of Bilam concerning which he was skeptical. But more than
anything he required Bilam's services because he needed to discredit
the Jews in the eyes of his people. He reasoned that the Jews must
indeed be morally superior people to have God so firmly on their side.
The moral superiority of the Jews was also accompanied by a
perception that the right was also on their side.
The power of Bilam was in his "evil eye." His curses came to rest
where his evil eye was able to uncover some moral lapse in the
character of his victims. You cannot curse anyone using God's
spiritual power unless that person has become vulnerable through
his own evil deeds, to some sort of misfortune.
Engaging Bilam to curse the Jews was equivalent to hiring a
master psychologist who is able to highlight the moral flaws of your
enemy. A judicious campaign of public exposure of the defects which
discredit the enemy can demonize him in the eyes of others to such
an extent that it becomes just for everyone to oppose him.
The failure of Bilam's mission was worth far more than a military
victory. The fact that he could uncover no blemish on the face of the
Jewish national character on which a curse could rest meant
that even the penetrating power of Bilam's evil eye was unable to
discover any serious moral defect in the Jewish people. Even the
great Bilam could not weaken the justice of the Jewish cause. To
appreciate the immense importance of this we shall now switch our
focus to modern day Israel.
MODERN DAY ISRAEL
Post Holocaust Jewish history closely parallels the Biblical
account of the conquest of Israel that began with the war against
Sichon and Og.
In both eras the Jewish people was the only entity in the family of
nations who had yet to win its homeland through the conquest of
native peoples. Just as it did back in Biblical times, this type of
conquest necessarily required a great deal of widely acknowledged
moral superiority to be successful. While many nations both then and
now had originally won their countries through conquest, in case of
other nations this conquest took place long ago and far away.
Unlike the fresh occupation of foreign soil by the Jewish people,
in their case the post conquest realities were in place for many
centuries. They did not have the problem of having to respond to the
claims of multitudes of dispossessed addressing themselves to the
international tribunal of nations and protesting the injustice of being
ousted from their ancestral lands.
Wherever conquest of native peoples is attempted today, as in
the Balkans for example, conquering nations do not have an easy
time of it. The need to justify conquest is not a uniquely Jewish
problem, even if it is aggravated for Jews by the force of antiSemitism.
The successful conquest of Israel can never be
accomplished without Divine intervention. The ultimate reason for
Jews being allowed to settle in the Holy Land is exactly the same as
it was back in Biblical times -- God's oath to Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob to award this land to their descendants.
Our topic is the way in which this conquest plays out on the stage
of the actual world. The conquest is miraculous by definition, but
even back then, as the story of Bilam illustrates, and especially in the
world of today, the moral perception of Israel by the nations is a
major factor in the actualization of the miracle.
In terms of such moral considerations, the successful reconquest of Israel by the Jewish people in modern times was based
on two factors:
The first was the mass slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust and
the long history of virulent world-wide anti-Semitism and persecution
which preceded it. Against the background of the freshly concluded
Holocaust, the need to allow a safe haven for the victims of the
horrendous Nazi genocide was temporarily self-evident to most
thinking human beings, and therefore Jewish re-settlement of the
land of Israel was accepted as morally correct by the civilized nations
of the world.
The second was the David and Goliath phenomenon. The ability
to overcome vastly superior forces and numbers with gallantry,
determination and heroic self-sacrifice is a sure mark of moral merit
in the eyes of the world. Even the undiscriminating mass murder of
women and children such as that carried out by Ho Chi Minh was
excused based on this heroism factor and allowed the Vietnamese
Communist to gain moral legitimacy for his cause.
But the Holocaust is now almost two generations behind us. With
the help of God the Jewish people have recovered. The David and
Goliath factor is no longer applicable to a country that is perceived as
the local superpower. The Palestinians are busily seeking out the
Achilles heel of Israel's moral superiority.
Frustration leads to aggression. If Israel can be provoked into
using the full power of its military might against the relatively unarmed
and seemingly defenseless Palestinians it will lose its moral edge
entirely, and the credibility of its conquest will vanish along with the
appearance of its flaws.
In modern day terms the Palestinians have stepped into Bilam's
shoes and are looking to reduce Israel's military might through the
power of the curse of negative public opinion.
LOOKING FOR FLAWS
Let us now step back again into the Bilam story. Why couldn't
Bilam find any flaws? Was the Exodus generation of the Jewish
people indeed so unblemished? We seem to be reading about
nothing else than its moral flaws all through the book of Numbers.
Why couldn't Bilam locate any?
A close examination of the three opportunities that Bilam
attempted to curse the Jewish people and the reasons for each of his
failures should offer us the insight to answer this question and
possibly provide useful guidance in developing a successful
approach to our present day problem.
ATTEMPT TO CURSE #1
"How can I curse? God has not cursed. How can I anger? The
Lord is not angry. For from its origins, I see it rock-like, and from
hills do I see it. Behold! It is a nation that will dwell in solitude and
not be reckoned among the nations. Who has counted the dust of
Jacob, or numbered a quarter of Israel?" (Numbers 23:8-10)
Explains the Ohr Hachaim: All people are guilty of transgressions
of various sorts during their lifetimes. The fact that we continue on as
though nothing had happened is due to an attribute of God called
(surprisingly) "supporter of iniquity" one of the thirteen attributes of
mercy revealed in the Book of Exodus (34:6-7). Whenever a person
commits a sin he assigns part of his life force to the "anti-force." Until
the sin is punished or atoned for, the "anti-force" has the right to
withdraw a portion of the fresh Divine life force that pours in to the
human soul constantly and without cease, the endless stream of life
necessary to keep us alive.
But to draw on this life force, the "anti-force" must be able to
attach itself to the soul of the sinner. It attaches itself to the sinner in
two places, the highest point of origin of his soul, and at the lowest
point where the soul connects with his lower being. As long as these
points are sealed off, the "anti-force" cannot attach itself at all and is
therefore incapable of drawing off any of the sinner's life force.
1
2
The sages reveal to us that Bilam's statement -- For from its
origins, I see it rock-like -- is a reference to the patriarchs, and From
the hills do I see it is a reference to the matriarchs. (See Rashi ibid.)
The highest point of origin of the collective Jewish soul is rooted in
our three patriarchs and our four matriarchs. Furthermore, the sages
also inform us that the dust of Jacob and the quarter of Israel refers
to the next generation of Jewish children. (See Rashi.) The lowest
point of the collective soul, the point where it enters the nether world,
is in the succeeding generation of Jewish children.
All individual grownups make mistakes. Sin is an almost
inevitable part of human existence given the fact that we have free
will. While everyone will have to account for his own failures and
shortcomings when he faces the Final Judgment, this does not affect
the collective moral merit of the Jewish people as long as two things
remain in place:
the unshakable commitment to continue the tradition of the
patriarchs and matriarchs; the teaching of this commitment to the
next generation of Jewish children in its purest form, free of the
compromises that the present generation of Jewish adults has seen
fit to make in its interaction with the outside world. These two
commitments preserve the unique flavor of the Jewish people and
keep it a nation that will dwell in solitude and not be reckoned among
the nations.
It is not any particular generation of Jews that functions as the
source of the collective moral force of the Jewish people. It is the
unbroken chain of tradition stretching from the patriarchs and ending
in the children that is the repository of the Jewish moral force. As long
as these two points are inviolate, the "anti-force" has no place in
which it can take root.
If modern Israel would be clearly perceived by all as the direct
continuation of the Jewish nation that originates in Abraham, stood at
Sinai and suffered through the vicissitudes of 2,000 years of
persecution and exile without ever abandoning its traditions or hope
of return to his lost homeland, then the moral claim of the Jewish
people to their land would have to be recognized by all. But it is a fact
that modern Israel perceives itself as something new and different.
Its inhabitants may be descendants of the Jews of exile but they have
made a fresh start in the 20th century. In this respect, Israel has
more in common with modern nations than with the traditions of the
patriarchs and this is precisely what renders it so vulnerable to world
criticism.
As we are not teaching our children even the barest minimum of
the observances and practices that have preserved us through our
2,000-year exile as a distinct people among the nations, it is clear
that we no longer associate our present with our past. How can we
expect to derive any moral justification for our present behavior from
a past that we ourselves no longer acknowledge? Why shouldn't we
be judged within the narrow focus of present day events if we were
born only yesterday, in the 20th century?
ATTEMPT TO CURSE #2
"One does not see iniquity in Jacob, and saw no perversity in
Israel. The Lord his God is with him, and the friendship of the
King is in him ... For there is no divination in Jacob and no
sorcery in Israel. Even now it is said to Jacob and Israel what
God has wrought." (Numbers 23:21-23)
(Rashi: they are deserving of blessing because they have no
magicians or sorcerers among them.)
The Hebrew word for witchcraft is keshofim. The Talmud
understands this is an acrostic that stands for the idea that witchcraft
gives the lie to the decisions of the heavenly court (Talmud, Chulin
7b).
You can even manipulate the forces of heaven by emphasizing
the evil that is in people, which makes them vulnerable to spiritual
attack. As long as the evil in a person remains hidden and
unexposed, the court of heaven is generally prepared to be patient
and tolerate it. When someone focuses the light of day on concealed
evil and places it on public display it often cannot be tolerated even if
the aim of exposure is to further a lie. A typical modern-day example
is the Palestinian use of children in surprise attacks. In the act of
repulsing such attacks the Jewish defenders will often inadvertently
injure the exposed children. If this is recorded on video-tape the
images make it appear that the defenders were specifically targeting
the child victims.
If it were crystal clear to everyone that the Jewish defenders, now
accused of child murder, are totally incapable of the deed, it would be
utterly impossible to credibly pin them with such responsibility even
with the aid of the convincing evidence of the images on a video tape.
But if somewhere in their souls, because of the immense frustration
and anxiety that has built up inside over a long period of exposure to
danger, there lurks a dark corner that is willing to contemplate
murdering innocent children -- even if this tiny corner would always
be restrained in practice -- then it is possible to manipulate the
situation.
Thus, we see that those who inadvertently killed innocent
children can be actually held responsible for infanticide with all the
negative consequences that accrue. After all, in some dark part of
their souls, they were indeed ready to commit the deed. Once this
point is recognized and exposed, the actual facts become a matter of
interpretation. Interpretation tends to follow prejudice.
The Palestinians are ready to sacrifice their children to portray
Jewish soldiers as guilty of infanticide. They know that this isn't an
credible accusation. They know that Jewish soldiers would never
actually set out to kill little children. But they also know that after
being subjected to repeated stoning attacks by these same children
over extended periods of time the thought must have crossed their
minds. Some dark corner of their souls must surely have felt the
desire. This is enough to present the actual deed as being a
reflection of the Jewish soldier's soul. Thus, the Jewish soldier is
condemned in the eyes of the world as a child killer.
Bilam knew that the will of God was not to punish the victims of
his curses at the present time. He knew that he was manipulating the
Divine will by exposing the flaws of the victims of his curses to the
open air, where even a benign and patient God cannot ignore them.
He didn't care. He wanted his will to win. He didn't care about God's
will.
This insistence of imposing one's own will on God constitutes the
sin of witchcraft. Jews are free of the evil of witchcraft. They have
their own moral flaws but they have no interest in manipulating the
Divine will and frustrating the will of the heavenly court. They are
willing to wait and be told what God has wrought. As long as this is
the national character Jews are invulnerable to this type of
manipulation.
When we also begin playing this game, and adopt policies that
are contrary to what we would follow out of considerations of
manipulating world opinion, we become guilty of engaging in
witchcraft. A nation that sacrifices the blood of its citizens to
manipulate opinions invests in witchcraft and also becomes
vulnerable to enemy witchcraft.
If we consistently followed the policies that are best for the
protection of our own citizenry in a level-headed way, we would be as
invulnerable to this type of curse as the Jews were to Bilam's curses
in Biblical times.
ATTEMPT TO CURSE #3
"How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O
Israel; stretching out like brooks, like gardens by a river, like
aloes planted by God, like cedars by water." (Numbers 25:5-6)
(Rashi: this was the final attempt of Bilam to use the power of his
evil eye. It was repulsed by the arrangement of Israel's tents.)
The tents in the Jewish camp were set up so that no one could
see into his neighbor's tent. There was a deliberate attempt to avoid
discovering the flaws that people like to keep hidden. The
comparison to brooks and gardens by a river etc. emphasizes
communal generosity - the "generous eye." When there is water in
plenty, no one is interested in seeing whether his neighbor has more
or less. There is no jealousy as everyone is blessed with sufficient
water and there is a spirit of generosity prevailing in the world.
One of the most pernicious myths of the modern world is justified
on the basis of "the need of the public to know." Modern research has
uncovered things about Kennedy, FDR, Thomas Jefferson, and many
other great men of the past that would have totally paralyzed them
from doing the things that made them great had they been known at
the time. The pernicious practice of sneaking around people's
bedrooms has ensured that the people who rise to great office are
corrupt or mediocre. They have no other skill than spinning the truth
in a way that puts them in a good light and are thus able to survive
the merciless scrutiny of people looking into each other's tents. The
essence of Bilam's power - "the evil eye" -- is based entirely on
exposing the hidden flaw that is kept carefully concealed, as this
entire essay has demonstrated. All of us have flaws. We ourselves
are ashamed of them. We are generally willing to live up to the public
face we present to the world. That is our best side, our public
persona, and we are willing to keep our public activities on a par with
the face we present to the world.
Exposing our secret lives to the light of day has the opposite of its
intended effect. Instead of forcing us to adjust our private selves to
match the face we present to the world, it allows us to function in
public with our flaws exposed since after they are exposed there is
little point to making the effort to rise above them. No one will let us
do it anyway.
The best defense against the evil eye is the generous eye. If the
Jewish people today made sure that they could not see into each
other tents the way our ancestors did in the desert, we would also be
sheltered from the power of anyone's evil eye.
It is wrong to blame journalists for the relentless invasion of
privacy that is part of our modern world. Journalists only feed us what
we ask them to. If we were determined not to see each other's faults
they would rapidly cease to attempt to expose them. There is nothing
more central to Judaism than the avoidance of lashon hara. God
wants us to be blessed, to be immune from the power of anyone's
curse.
May we be granted the wisdom of following in the footsteps of our
ancestors. We are facing the identical problems and only their tried
and tested solutions can help us overcome them.
FAMILY PARASHA
OVERVIEW
The ability to speak is a precious gift. Even though our words are
invisible, they have the power to save lives, or destroy them.
The Torah relates that Balak, the King of Moab, knew this when
he sought to hire Bilaam, the famous sorcerer, to attack the Jewish
people by cursing them with words.
But God foiled the plot by confusing Bilaam's speech so that
instead of cursing the Jewish people he ended up blessing them.
Even though we're not sorcerers, each of us also has the ability
to bring blessing and happiness into the lives of others when we
speak kind, uplifting words and refrain from hurting others with putdowns and nasty comments.
STORY
In our story a boy experiences the power of words.
"UPS AND DOWNS"
It was a typical spring day and Danny Feld was walking home
from school. Danny was a pleasant, likeable boy. Although he was a
little short for his age, he tried his best not to let it bother him.
As he was walking, he felt something stabbing his foot. "A rock in
my shoe," he thought to himself and bent down to shake it out before
continuing on his way. At first he didn't even notice the raucous
voices and bursts of laughter coming from across the street. But as
they grew louder it became obvious that they were being directed at
him.
1
3
Danny looked up and saw to his dismay a group of mean-looking
boys pointing in his direction and laughing. In the middle of the group
stood Greg Jones, or "Mr. Put Down," as he was known in school.
Greg seemed to enjoy nothing better than insulting, cursing out, and
otherwise putting down anybody who wasn't part of his crowd.
Although he didn't actually beat people up, he could be so cruel with
his words that sometimes his victims felt he had done just that.
And now, it seemed, was Danny's turn to face Greg's wrath. "Hey
you runt," Greg snarled at the boy who was still bent down over his
untied shoe. "What are you doing? Talking with your friends the
ants? They're just about your size, hah hah!"
Danny felt the blood rush from his face as he burned with shame.
He tried not to show that he was paying any attention to the taunts
that were being hurled at him. But inside, he felt terrible. Even though
he knew deep down that he was a good person no matter what
anybody said, Greg's cruel words still hurt a lot.
After a couple of minutes that felt like forever to Danny, Greg and
his gang got tired of picking on him and moved on down the street in
search of their next victim. Danny slowly stood up and, with his
tormentors safely out of range, let flow the warm salty tears that he
had been trying to hold back with all of his strength.
As he slowly shuffled home Danny remembered that he had told
his mom he would pick up some toothpaste for her at the corner drug
store. He ducked into the store, grabbed a tube, and headed toward
the counter to pay.
But as he walked down one of the aisles he felt a tug on his shirt.
It was Rob, a younger kid who lived down the block. "Hi Danny," he
said cheerfully. "Boy am I happy to see you! I need to reach that
bottle of shampoo up there. My mom is waiting in line at the
checkout. She said if I couldn't reach I should ask somebody tall to
help me, so I'm glad you came by. Could you reach it for me please?"
Danny smiled and handed the boy the bottle from the top display
shelf.
"Gee thanks a lot Danny," he said. "I can't wait until I'm big like
you!" The younger boy hurried toward the checkout.
Suddenly Danny noticed that he felt much better after his
encounter with Rob. The boy's kind words were like a soothing
bandage on the wounds of Greg's stinging insults. Danny made his
purchase and headed home, having learned a big lesson that day
about just how much somebody's words could hurt ... and heal.
QUESTIONS
Ages 3-5
Q. How did Danny feel when Greg started to call him names?
A. He felt very hurt. Words can sometimes hurt as much as sticks
and stones.
Q. How did he feel after he spoke with Rob at the store?
A. Rob's kind words made him feel much better. We should always
try to speak words that will make people feel good.
Ages 6-9
Q. Did Greg's nasty name-calling actually make Danny into less of a
good person? Did he become a better person because Rob
complimented him? Why or why not?
A. Danny may have felt less of a good person, but in reality nothing
changed. Every person has tremendous worth that has nothing to do
with what anybody says or thinks of us. We are all children of God
who loves us unconditionally and made us in a way that is perfect for
our own good and for the good of the whole world. We should try to
remember this if we ever find ourselves feeling the pain of other
people's unkind words.
Q. What are some ways we can use our power of speech positively?
A. We can try to encourage others with our words. We can speak to
people truthfully and honestly. We can "bless" people by sincerely
wishing them success and giving them sincere compliments. We can
pray to God. We can try our best to speak in a clean and respectful
way to everyone we meet. In fact, nearly every time that we open our
mouths to speak, we can bring something good into the world if we
set our minds to it.
Ages 10 and Up
Q. The sages tell us that in a certain sense words have even more
potential to damage than a physical attack. How do you understand
this? Do you agree?
A. The old adage "sticks and stones may break my bones but words
can never hurt me" is patently false. The most painful bodily wounds
generally heal. But the psychological scars of a verbal attack can
haunt a person his entire life. Our power of speech is a dynamo
within us that can be used to bring great blessing and joy into
people's lives if used properly, but if abused can be devastating.
Q. What if Greg had claimed that he wasn't serious but was only
joking around? Would that have been a valid justification for him to
say the things he did? Why or why not?
A. There is a tendency to let almost anything go in the name of a
good joke. But to the person on the receiving end, such crude
attempts at humor are painfully not funny, even if he or she pretends
to laugh along. A sense of humor is a wonderful thing and has the
potential to be used to cheer others up and bring light into the world.
But this is true only when the joke isn't at anybody else's expense.
Q. What are some ways we can use our power of speech positively?

10- HALACHA (Gross)
Selected Halachos Relating To Parshat HaShevua By Rabbi Doniel NeustadtDustributed by The Harbotzas Torah Division
of Congregation Shomre Shabbos
THE 17TH DAY OF TAMMUZ
The three-week period known as Bein ha-Metzarim, the time of
year when we mourn the destruction of the two Batei Mikdash, begins
with a fast day on the 17th day of Tammuz, and ends with a fast day,
on the ninth day of Av. Let us review the laws of the day known as
Shivah Assar b'Tamuz - the 17th Day of Tammuz.
In most places the fast begins 72 minutes before sunrise (alos
amud ha-shachar)(1) and ends 50 minutes after sunset (tzeis hakochavim)(2). Sunrise and sunset times are calculated by
1
4
various government agencies and are readily available to the general
public.
Food and drink may be consumed any time(3) during the night of
the 17th(4) - but only if one remains awake all night. Once a person
retires for the evening, the fast begins, because people do not
normally eat until breakfast the following morning - which is well past
alos amud ha-shachar. Retiring the evening before, therefore, is
tantamount to starting the fast. Consequently: Unless one explicitly
states(5) before going to sleep that he plans to wake up early to eat
before the fast begins, he may not eat in the morning upon
awakening, even before alos amud ha-shachar. For him, the fast has
already begun(6). One who normally drinks coffee, juice, etc., in the
morning upon arising, does not need to stipulate that he will drink this
morning as well. One who normally does not drink anything in the
morning should stipulate before retiring that he is planning to get up
in the morning to drink. B'dieved, if he failed to do so, he may drink
nevertheless(7). "Going to sleep" means deep sleep, whether in a
bed or not. Napping or dozing does not mean that the individual has
finished eating and begun the fast(8). Although, as stated, it is
permitted to eat before alos amud ha-shachar [if one intended to do
so the evening before the fast], one who eats then must contend with
another halachic issue - the strict prohibition against eating before
davening Shacharis(9). The rules are as follows: According to the
Zohar(10), one who wakes up at any time during the night [after
midnight] may not eat before davening - even though the time of
davening is several hours off. Although there are special individuals
who abide by the Zohar(11), the basic halachah is not as stated in
the Zohar and the prohibition does not begin until the earliest time for
davening, which is alos amud ha-shachar(12). As stated, it is
permitted to eat until alos amud ha-shachar. However, one who did
not begin to eat until he was within half an hour of alos amud hashachar must do one of the following(13): Limit his food intake: Eat
fruit (any amount)(14), eat any shehakol type of food but without
being kovei'a seudah (eating a regular, scheduled meal)(15), or eat
less than 2.2 fl. oz. of bread, cake, cereal, etc.(16) All drinks,- except
intoxicating beverages,- are permitted in any amount(17). Eat any
kind and any amount of food, but appoint another person to remind
him to recite Kerias Shema and Shemoneh Esrei(18). Once alos
amud ha-shachar arrives, it is questionable if it is permitted to go
back to sleep before davening. If he does go back to sleep, he should
appoint another person to wake him up for davening(19). An alarm
clock is not sufficient for this purpose(20).
FAST DAY ACTIVITIES
Although it is permitted to bathe on a fast day, it has become
customary not to take a hot shower or bath(21). It is also proper for
adults to refrain from swimming(22), unless it is needed for a medical
condition or to cool off on a hot day.
The poskim differ as to whether it is permitted to rinse one's
mouth with water on the 17th of Tammuz(23). Some permit rinsing
the front part of the mouth, taking care that no water enters the throat
area(24), while other poskim allow this only when in distress
(tza'ar)(25). According to the second view, then, one may not
schedule a fast-day visit to a dentist [which will require him to rinse
his mouth] unless he is in pain(26).
Medications prescribed by a doctor may be taken on the 17th of
Tammuz. One who has difficulty swallowing pills without water may
drink the amount of water required to swallow them. There is no need
to ruin the taste of the water before drinking it(27).
When suffering from a severe headache, etc., aspirin or Tylenol,
etc., may be taken. The poskim, however, do not permit taking those
medications with water, unless the water is first made to have a bad
taste(28).
DAVENING ON A FAST DAY:
During the reading of the Torah on a fast day, the custom is that
certain verses are read aloud by the congregation. The individual
who is called up for that aliyah should not read the verses aloud with
the congregation. Instead, he should wait until the reader says them
aloud and read along with him(29).
One who mistakenly ate on a fast day must resume and complete
the fast(30), and he may recite aneinu at Minchah(31). One who is
not fasting altogether should not say aneinu(32). A minor who is not
fasting need not say aneinu [for the purpose of chinuch](33).
One who is davening Shemoneh Esrei together with the sheliach
tzibur should not say aneinu as a separate blessing like the sheliach
tzibur does; he should say it as it is said in private recitation, in
Shema koleinu(34).
At the Minchah service, Avinu malkeinu is recited,- even when
one is davening without a minyan(35).
FOOTOTES:
1 Beiur Halachah 89:1 quoting Rambam. [While some calendars list alos amud ha-shachar as 50 minutes before sunrise,
there is no halachic basis for this calculation.] The custom in Israel is to calculate alos amud ha-shachar as 90 minutes
before sunrise. In England and in other countries, alos may be much earlier; see Minchas Yitzchak 9:9.
2 Igros Moshe
O.C. 4:62.
3 Some authorities maintain that it is improper to eat more than one normally does on the night before the
fast, since that defeats the purpose of fasting (Eliyahu Rabbah 563:1). This stringency is quoted by some poskim but
omitted by the Mishnah Berurah and many others (see Be'er Heitev 568:22; Aishel Avraham Tanina, ibid.; Elef ha-Magen
602:6; Kaf ha-Chayim 563:11; Igros Moshe O.C. 3:88; b'Tzeil ha-Chochmah 2:48). 4 A ba'al nefesh should begin the
fast before nightfall of the 17th; Sha'ar ha-Tziyun 550:9. See also Sha'ar ha-Tziyun 565:8. 5 It is preferable to do so
verbally, but it is valid as long as one had the condition in mind.
6 O.C. 564:1. One who did not know this halachah
and ate in the morning without having made the stipulation the night before, may still recite aneinu (Shevet ha-Kehasi
1:180).
7 Mishnah Berurah 564:6 and Aruch ha-Shulchan 564:2 based on Rama, ibid. See, however, Mateh Efrayim
206:6, who is more stringent.
8 Mishnah Berurah 564:3. 9 O.C. 89:3. According to the Minchas Chinuch (#248),
this may be a Biblical prohibition. 10 Quoted by the Magen Avraham 89:14 and by all the latter poskim. 11 Aruch haShulchan 89:26.
12 Consensus of all the poskim; see Mishnah Berurah 89:28; Aruch ha-Shulchan 89:26; Yalkut
Yosef, pg. 147.
13 Women are exempt from the following rules (Harav S.Z. Auerbach, written responsum published
in Lev Avraham, vol. 2, pg. 20). 14 Based on Mishnah Berurah 232:34 and 286:9. 15 Based on Mishnah Berurah
639:15.
16 Mishnah Berurah 89:27. 17 Based on Mishnah Berurah 232:35.
18 Based on Mishnah Berurah
235:18. See also 89:34.
19 See Siddur ha-Gra, pg. 88, quoting Harav Y.L. Diskin and Binyan Olam 1. See Siyach
Halachah, pg. 149. 20 Harav S.Z. Auerbach, quoted in Shevus Yitzchak, vol. 2, pg. 287. 21 Sha'ar ha-Tziyun 550:8;
Aruch ha-Shulchan 550:3. 22 Be'er Moshe 3:77; Harav M. Feinstein (oral ruling quoted in Mo'adei Yeshurun, pg. 108).
Minors, however, may swim; Nitei Gavriel, pg. 34 quoting Puppa Rav. 23 O.C. 567:3.
24 Aruch ha-Shulchan 567:3
This seems to be the view of Be'er Heitev 567:5 and Da'as Torah 567:3 as well. See also Magen Avraham, who allows
rinsing the mouth as long as less than 3.3 fl. oz. of water are used at a time.
25 Mishnah Berurah 567:11 following the
view of the Chayei Adam. Kaf ha-Chayim 567:13-14 also rules stringently.
26 Nishmas Avraham O.C., pg. 290.
27 Harav S.Z. Auerbach (quoted in Nishmas Avraham, vol. 5, pg. 46). This is permitted on Tishah b'Av as well,
ibid.; Harav M. Stern (Debreciner Rav, written responsum in Nitei Gavriel, Bein ha-Metzarim, pg. 30).
28
See
Nishmas Avraham O.C., pg. 282, concerning Tishah b'Av.
29 Mishnah Berurah 566:3. 30 Ibid. 549:3.
31 Ibid.
568:3. See Shevet ha-Levi 5:60.
32 Beiur Halachah 565:1. 33 Shevet ha-Levi 8:131. 34 Ibid. 565:1.
35
Sha'arei Teshuvah O.C. 584:2 quoting Shevus Yaakov and Kitzur Shalah; Harav M. Feinstein (oral ruling quoted in
Mo'adei Yeshurun, pg. 112). See, however, Da'as Torah 584:1 who states that some do not recite Avinu malkeinu when
praying without a minyan.

11-D'VAR TORAH U'MADA
Jerusalem College of Technology - Machon Lev 21 Havaad Haleumi St., POB16031 Jerusalem, 91160 ISRAEL
http://www.jct.ac.il e-mail: [email protected] Tel: 972-2-675-1193 Fax: 972-2-675-1190
MIRACLES AND NATURAL LAW
Yehudah Leo Levi
Two weeks ago, we read in the weekly portion: "And the earth
opened its mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and
all the men who appertained to Korach, and all their goods." (1). A
week ago, we read how Moshe created a well, drawing water from
the rock by striking it with his staff - the staff "with which he performed
the signs." This week, we read how "G-d opened the mouth of the
donkey, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you
have struck me these three times?" (2). The impression arising from
here is that of a miraculous existence. On the other hand, we are
instructed to act according to the laws of nature. We follow the
rabbinic dictum "One should not rely on miracles" (3), and one who
fills his Chanukah lamp with vinegar instead of oil has not fulfilled the
mitzvah. So, this is a good opportunity to examine the relationship
between miracles and natural laws.
Let us start with the Mishnah: "Ten things were created in the
twilight period of Sabbath eve [the sixth day of Creation]: the earth's
orifice, the well's orifice, the donkey's mouth, the rainbow, the manna,
the staff, the shamir, the letters, the writing and the tablets" (4).
Maimonides comments here:
As I mentioned in chapter 8, they [the Sages] did not believe in
the constant renewal of the [Divine] Will. Rather, anything that is to
happen, whether the action is constant - termed "natural" - or
extraordinary - termed "wondrous"- was put into nature from the
beginning of creation. Hence, it says that on the sixth day the earth
was ["programmed"] such that Korach and his followers would sink
into it, and that the well would give water, and the donkey speak, etc.
Clearly, it is G-d's Will that everything follow rules determined from
the outset, at Creation. True, there are deviations from natural laws,
but these were planned from the beginning, such as the earth's
orifice, the well's orifice and the donkey's mouth.
Here we have a philosophical basis for the natural sciences. Let
us examine their foundation. Natural science has a fundamental
limitation of which many are unaware. Indeed, we observe a constant
pattern in nature's behavior. Every morning, the sun rises in the east,
and in the evening it sets in the west, according to exact unchanging
rules. Likewise, whenever one drops an object, it drops towards the
earth's center, and so forth. We can formulate laws that can describe
what appears to be regular natural behavior. But the reason for this
behavior nobody knows. Consequently, not knowing the reason
behind nature's obeying certain rules, we can't be sure that tomorrow
the world will continue to follow the same behavior as today.
Even if I see a watch ticking every second for 24 consecutive
hours, can I be certain that it will continue to tick in the future? It may
be that this is a 24-hour watch, and the spring driving it has now run
down. Only by knowing how the watch functions, can one derive
conclusions regarding the future based on the past. In fact, the
fundamental reasons for nature's laws remain unknown. True, we
can offer explanations for different natural phenomena, but these
explanations are always based on more elementary laws; and when
we reach the most elementary of these, we can not explain it.
I remember well the beginning of our mechanics course at the
University. The professor entered the classroom and started his
lecture with a question: "A body in motion stays in uniform motion
unless a force acts on it. - Why?" We had no answer. Why, indeed,
should a ball I throw continue along its path after it has left my hand?
We sat and thought about it. One of the students announced: "That
is Newton's first law!" The professor responded: "True. But why did
the body act this way before Newton passed his law? We continued
to brainstorm; the question seemed so simple, but we couldn't come
up with an answer. Finally the professor said: "You should all know
that physics does not offer an answer to this question; it is outside the
limits of science. This is a philosophical question, which we do not
deal with here. For the answer to that, you will need to look
elsewhere." It was somewhat difficult to accept what he said; but, in
the end, he was right.
We can formulate rules that nature seems to follows. But science
cannot provide a basis for these. Just as science can't explain why a
moving body tends to keep moving uniformly, and why like electric
charges repel, likewise it can only explain any fundamental law in
terms of an even more fundamental law. Perhaps, one day,
everything will be explained in terms of a single universal elementary
law, but the reason for it will also be beyond science. Given this
limitation of science, the 18th Century English philosopher David
Hume concluded that there are no "natural laws," only "customs of
nature"- reminiscent of our Rabbis' expression "the world follows its
own custom" (5). The question of who maintains these customs
remains beyond the bounds of science.
To summarize: our senses tell us that the world follows a
constant pattern of behavior; but the existence of laws that control the
world is a mere article of faith.
As a result, any scientist who does not believe in the existence of
a Creator and Master of the world lacks a basis for believing in
nature's laws. One can observe regular patterns in nature but not
"laws". Clearly, there is no basis for denying their existence, but
neither is there a basis for this scientist to believe in them.
What about the believing scientist? In light of Torah, how will he
view nature's laws? It is easy to see that such laws are required to
make possible the fulfillment of the Torah's mitzvoth. Merely picture
a world acting arbitrarily - without laws. Imagine: when planting
certain seeds in the ground, sometimes wheat will grow and
sometimes onions. Or: the same human effort will sometimes raise
the hand and sometimes lower it. Clearly, such a situation does not
allow for human control of his surroundings and even of his own
actions; man would feel like a puppet and live an utterly passive life.
Evidently laws of nature are prerequisite to make mitzvot
1
5
executable. If G-d wishes that we observe His commandments, He
must supply us with dependable laws of nature. Perhaps this was
part of the prophet's intention in saying, "If not for my covenant day
and night, I would not have set the laws of heaven and earth" (6).
The Jew, who has learned Torah and tasted its wisdom,
understands well why set laws govern nature. They are necessary for
the Torah's fulfillment; they are the means by which the Torah is
realized. For him, faith in the laws of nature remains in the realm of
faith, but it is a reasonable and sound belief, while for the agnostic
scientist it is an utterly arbitrary belief. As Rabbi S.R. Hirsch put it:
The belief in G-d Who created man and other living creatures is also
the foundation of man's theoretical knowledge. Remove belief [in G-d]
from theoretical science, and you have taken away its very basis.
Hopeless agnosticism will be your lot, and who assures you that you
are not merely deriving a dream from a dream, and proving one
dream with another? (7)
Truly, "The fear of G-d is the beginning of wisdom." (8)
R. Yehuda Levi teaches Torah in the JCT Beis Medrash. He is a
Professor for electro-optics and rector emeritus of JCT.
Notes
1. Num. 16:32
2. Ibid. 22:28 3. Pesachim 64b
4. Mishnah Avot 5:6 5. Avodah Zara 54b 6. Jeremiah 33:25
7. Rabbi S.R. Hirsch, Gen. 20:19 8. Psalms 111:10

12-HARAV MOTTI ALLON
Keren YishaiYishai is a non-profit organization that has grown out of the perceived need for a new forum for dialog
between Jews from all walks of life, all ethnic origins, religious beliefs and political views. http://www.kerenyishai.org
text

13 - TORAH TIDBITS (Israel Center)
Phil Chernofsky, OU/NCSY Israel Center, Jerusalem Home Page : http://www.cyberscribe.com/tt
text

14-TANACH STUDY CENTER
(Leibtag)
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag [http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/tanach]
text
