Musings on Parshat Massey

Following are some of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our interpretations may derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

Overview

Itinerary of the 40 year journey of the Jews from Egypt to the Promised Land; Rules of Occupation: driving out the pagan inhabitants and employing a lottery for distributing the land; Boundaries of the land of Canaan; New leadership; Cities for the Levites; Cities of refuge for accidental murder; Temporary requirement (prior to occupation of the Land) for women to marry within their Tribe.

Why the need for a 40- Pasuk desert travelogue?

In her Studies in Bamidbar, Nechama Leibowitz surveys some of possible answers.

Rashi opines that the travel detail publicizes Hashem’s compassion in that He did not allow the Jews to wander nonstop for 40 years. On the contrary, they were able to rest at each of the 42 stages, for extended periods of time at some. Rashi also quotes the Midrash Tanchumah that compares the Jews’ travels to a trip a King makes to find a cure for his ailing son. When he returns, the King enumerates each of the places on the trip. Here Hashem asks Moshe to recall each of the places where the Jews provoked Him to anger, but at the end Hashem kept His promise.

The Be’er Yitzchak super commentary on Rashi points to the historical continuity that this record provides for the Jews when they are settled in their Homeland. Reading the text evokes the memory of the sufferings that existed on the way to achieving the goal of achieving a Homeland.

Rambam focuses on the accuracy of the Jewish history that the text provides. The Jews did not, as some would have it, blunder helplessly in the desert. On the contrary, they were guided by Hashem who manifest His presence in an overhead cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night to show them the way.

Sforno points out that while it is true that the Jews were rebellious and grumbling during their desert traveling, it is also true that they without questioning and without knowing where they were headed chose to “follow Him through the wilderness that was not sown”

On Auray Miklat (Cities of Refuge)

The Torah states that when the Jews cross the Jordan River into the Land of Canaan they are to “designate towns that shall serve you as Refuge cities to which a murderer who killed a person accidentally can flee”. The Hebrew word MIKLAT connotes clutching, absorption, retention.

The refuge is available to unintentional slayers (not premeditated murderers); the Blood Avenger (family member seeking to avenge the death of the family member) can kill the individual if he is found outside the Refuge City); the inhabitant is free to leave upon the death of the High Priest.

What the purpose of these cities is a matter of lively discussion. Rav B.S. Jacobson in his Meditations on the Torah cites a number of views.

Some maintain it is a protective measure to protect the person from the Blood Avenger. Rambam asserts that we want to calm the excited bloodthirstiness of the Blood Avenger by keeping the individual out of his sight. Others think that it is a punitive measure; one who has caused the death of another human being even by accident must experience Exile, separated from family and friends, a kind of Social Death. A third school of thought maintains that it is an expiatory measure.

Rav Hirsch expands on this last approach and concludes that it is a chance for the individual to redeem himself from the burden of guilt that weighs on him. The city’s citizens are obligated to attend to his spiritual and cultural needs. The surrounding Levites, being of a spiritual nature, will know how to educate him and help him to become a better person when he leaves than when he arrived.

Shadal points us to the historic context of earlier generations when it was considered the sacred obligation of a family member to avenge the death by murder of a fellow family member. With the creation of a judicial system it became possible to calm the avenger with the prospect of Justice being meted out by the Courts (Beis Din). But this won’t work in the case of accidental murderer because he will be constantly “in the face” of the Avenger, seemingly getting off scot- free. The Avenger would feel a lack of love because of (or guilt over) his inability to Avenge the death of the family member. The Torah balanced these opposing drives by relocating the manslayer to a protected Refuge city, but also permitting the Avenger the chance for vengeance should the manslayer leave the city of Refuge.

It is interesting to note that the Rambam maintains that in the Messianic times the cities of Refuge will be re-established on a more extensive basis.

Why is the length of stay tied to the death of the High Priest?

Rambam offers the psychological analysis that the death of the High Priest would prompt people—including the Blood Avenger—to consider death and its inevitability and the suffering it brings. Upon contemplating this, the would-be Avenger may then no longer feel the need to be a Blood Avenger.

Isaac Erama thinks that since the Cities of Refuge came under the Administration of the High Priest, his death may be a kind of amnesty.

Why is the topic presented here at the very end of the Sefer Bamidbar?

The Jewish people, having engaged in some ferocious battles east of the Jordan River, are on the verge of entering the Promised Land to create a society and life built the ethics of the Torah. There would be additional fighting and killing in the course of capturing Eretz Canaan. At this juncture, with the (necessary) killings in battles of the  past and expected in the future, perhaps it was the Torah’s intent to draw attention to the peacetime horror of killing a fellow human being, even unintentionally. There would be the desire for Revenge, there would be guilt; there would be a social death.

The Torah refers to the perpetrator of unplanned murder as a Rotzaich, a murderer. On some deep unconscious level even the accidental killing may have traces of premeditation. Perhaps the Torah is sensitizing us to the need to be super careful in our behavior, for which we and we alone are responsible. We are to make the extra effort to be sure that our actions cause no harm. For example, the woodchopper would be best advised to make sure that the head and handle of the axe are attached firmly—and to check again that there is no one in the vicinity when he begins his wood chopping.

In this Parsha the Torah demands that the Jewish people uproot all traces of paganism and idolatry in the Land of Canaan. It now demands that we pay attention to our behavior. The Afikomen is eaten last at the Seder so that its taste (i.e., its message) stays with us. Perhaps the same idea is applicable here. The topics discussed in the Parsha are of such importance that the Torah presents them last so that their “taste” stays with us (i.e., critical importance of avoiding both idolatry and even “accidental” bloodshed).

Rabbi H.L. Berenholz

Musings on Parshat Bereshis

Overview

PARSHAT BERESHIS begins with creation, hope and optimism but ends with despair, hope­lessness and gloom: creation of the world and Mankind; Man's early life experiences and conflicts; and the rise (and then fall) of civilization.

Nechama Leibowitz  elaborates: "The Torah shows us how civiliza­tion and economic progress brought with them four-step erosion in human behavior to the point where Mankind's very existence was endangered."

Step #1: ADAM, the first man, is also the first sinner. He was commanded, "... Of every tree in the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it; for in the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

The Midrash describes Hashem's commandment and Adam's sin as follows: "Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair  stated: Before Adam partook of this tree it was simply called 'tree' just like the others. But as soon as he ate, thereby transgressing the decree of THE HOLY ONE BLESSED BE HE, it was called the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. Why did Hashem command Adam to eat of all the trees of the garden  except  one? So that Adam should “constantly remember his Creator and be conscious of the yolk of  Hashem who created him." (Midrash Tadsheh). The one commandment that Adam received was designed to help him maintain a perspective on his position in the world where he was the sole human being. Adam needed to know that there was a master over him. Adam's sin, therefore, was a private matter between himself and Hashem wherein he acted as if he were the master of the world and could do whatever he wanted without limitations or restrictions.

Step#2: Adam’s sons Cain and Hevel:The story of one human's cold blooded murder of another. The Torah states "... Cain brought an offering to Hashem of the fruit of the ground ... and Hevel he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and from the choicest. And the L-RD had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and his offering He showed no respect.  And Cain was very wroth and his countenance fell. And Hashem said to Cain, 'Why are you annoyed and why has your countenance fallen? Surely, if you improve yourself you will be forgiven.Cain spoke with his brother, Hevel (when they were in the field) then rose up against his brother, Hevel and killed him."

According to some, Hevel's offerings were accepted by Hashem because they were brought from the best and finest. He dug deeply into his pocket to give to Hashem. Contrast this with Cain who did not seem to extend himself at all. He simply brought crops that grew on public land. Moreover, according to Rashi, Cain brought inferior produce for his offering. Cain became enraged when his offering was rejected. Hashem tried to reason with Cain telling him not to indulge in self-pity and reminding him that his situation could be changed dramatically for the better if he would only improve his attitude and behavior. His - and all Mankind's - salvation comes from within. But Cain was not to be placated. Instead, he strikes up a conversation with his brother, Hevel, out in the fields, away from home and kills him in cold blood.

What were they arguing about ?

According to a Midrash,they said: Come let us divide the world. One took the lands and the other took the movables. Soon one said: The land on which you are standing it mine; and the other replied: The clothes you are wearing are mine. One said: Take them off! the other: Get off! In the course of this argument Cain rose up against hevelhis brother and killed him!

R. Joshua of Sakhnin in the name of R. Levi said: Both took lands and both took movables. But what were they arguing about? One said: In my domain shall the Temple be built. The other said: In my domain shall the Temple be built, as it is stated: "And when they were in the field." The "field" is none other than the Temple, as it is written "Zion shall be plowed as a field. In the heat of the argument, Cain rose up and murdered Hevel.

Yehuda bar Ami said: They were arguing over Eve.

The first opinion maintains that Cain and hevel fought over economic issues, over material wealth.  R' Joshua, holds that bloodshed was prompted by religious and ideological conflict. Lastly, Rabbi Yehuda contends that the quarrel centered on their mother, Eve, and was rooted in sexual passion.

The story of Cain and Hevel is the story  of Mankind and civilization.It is Man's underlying (sometimes unconscious) aggressive drives and conflicts that precipitate wars and bloodshed.  

Step #3: Generations of major advances in technology and in civilization bring violence on a scale never before seen up until that time. Lemech, a direct descendant of Cain, sires a son, Tuval-Cain who becomes a forger of brass and iron armaments. Lemech boasts of his ability to employ these deadly weapons to lord over his fellow man and to commit indiscriminate murder. While Cain's behavior was dictated by sibling rivalry and jealously the transgressions of Lemech are rooted in the sinister attitude that absolute power makes right and that one tyrant can bully society.

Step #4: crimes committed by large groups of individuals in power ("the sons of the princes and judges") who enslave their fellow men. The Torah describes the acts of the strong exploiting the weak as follow:" they took tor themselves wives from whomever they chose." These men destroyed the social order. They used their power and position to usurp whatever they pleased causing Hashem to rethink his decision to create Man.

Bereshis gives us a look back to our roots and our inherent  human aggression. It gives us a chance to look in the mirror and reflect on  our behavior, frailties and conflicts. Through self-examination and reflection we are given the opportunity to change ourselves for the better.

Creation of OHR(Light) on day 1

Perhaps the introduction of OHR means the introduction of ORDER (and not sunlight) to the existing Chaos. Choshesch/darkness/nighttime connotes states of chaos, sadness and pessimism. The word OHR communicates unity, optimism, and hope. This also may explain why the first day is called YOM ECHAD (and not ordinal Yom Rishon ) because  on this day Hashem created ACHDUS, unity from chaos.( ACDUS and  ECHAD are about one and oneness.) Then, on Day 3, Hashem creates the sun to define day and night.

On Cain and Hevel

In this story, the Torah consistently  uses the Essence name of Hashem (the yud, hay, vav, hay ) possibly because it sensitizes us to a core Truth of human existence: how sibling rivalry and other (sometimes unconscious) emotional drives affect behavior.

The Torah explains that Eve named  her first born Cain because "I have gained (kaneese)a male child with the help of the Lord", but regarding her second son merely states "She then bore his brother Hevel." It sounds like the name was chosen by someone else even before his birth.

Hevel means breath or vapor,something fleeting.Did Eve favor her first born and ignore child number two? Did her enthusiasm and gratitude to Hashem lessen once she gave birth a second time and realized that childbirth was a natural phenomenon? Or is this the Torah's way of letting us know in advance that the second child's life would be like a fleeting breath and that he would die prematurely?

Because the text does not state how the brothers knew and why Hevel’s offering was favored I think it possible that the Torah is focusing more on the emotional state and perception of each brother. Cain, who comes up with the idea of bringing a Thanksgiving offering to Hashem, follows in the footsteps of his father Adam by becoming a farmer-- despite the knowledge that farming would be hard and often unfruitful work ("kotz vedardar tatzmeach lach"). When he sees his younger brother Hevel copy him and then some, by bringing from top-of-the prime beef from a higher life form (animals), Cain imagines  that there is no way Hashem will pay any attention to him and his inferior offering.(Note: Hevel, by his display of one-upmanship, may be provoking Cain, fanning the flames of jealousy and rivalry.)

This realization amplifies Cain's existing, already-intense sibling rivalry and brings on feelings of depression, inferiority, and hopelessness.Hashem acknowledges the enormity of Cain's rage—and confirms that these emotions could completely swallow him up and destroy him,.But the story ends on an optimisic note when Hashem informs Cain that he (Mankind) has the ability to confront, and gain control over these raging emotions (perhaps in modern times by undergoing psychoanalysis).

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings On Parshat Matos

Following are some  of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge  from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our  interpretations  may derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

Overview

Laws of Personal Vows; War against Midyan; Laws  of Purification, Purging and Immersion; Dividing spoils of War; Officers  offering gold items; Request of  Reuvain and Gad’s descendents to inherit  land East of the Jordan River (not in Eretz Yisroel  proper).

On the word Matos

In Hebrew, the word for tribes  is either Matos or Shevatim. Both words mean branches but, according to the Rebbi from Lubavitch, the former refers to branches that have become detached from the tree and have hardened to become a staff or rod while the latter refers to branches that are still attached to the tree and retain their softness and flexibility. Parshas Matos is always read doing the Three Weeks of mourning. Perhaps the subtle suggestion is that during this period of the desert wanderings and during these three weeks of mourning for the destruction of the Holy Temple we are/were  like matos--branches separated from our source (Hashem) unyielding and obstinate (Am kshei oref). Yet we maintain the hope and optimism that ultimately  when we begin  the period of Nechama (consolation) we will reconnect, reattach and become one with Hashem.(Note: it would be interesting to review all the places in the Torah where the word  Matos or mate is used and see if there is any dissension / argument /disagreement present.)

What is wrong with the claims of Reuvain and Gad’s descendants (later joined by half of Menashe’s descendents) ?

The Jews, having conquered Transjordan, stand ready on the Plains of Moav to enter and conquer the Promised Land. At that point the Torah tells us that” …the children of Reuvain and Gad had a huge amount of cattle and when they saw…( some of the surrounding lands)… was a place for cattle.” Their total focus from was on their “prime” (cattle) material possessions not on the religious/spiritual uplifting that awaited them in the Promised Land! And as we shall soon see, they were more concerned with their monies than their children.

”The children of Gad and of Reuvain came and spoke to Moshe and to Elazar the priest…” and told them how the land was especially suitable for cattle, which they had.  Rav B.S. Jacobson in his Meditations on the Torah points out that Gad is mentioned first now (instead of second as previously)  because it was Gad that took the initiative and became the combined tribes’ spokesman. Gad was not afraid of the hostile neighbors and did not act out of cowardice.

Abrabanel comments on the delicate nature of the negotiations in which they intimated their claim…and waited, as suggested by the blank space before the  beginning of the next paragraph, when  they openly state that they want  the Transjordan land.

Moshe, mistakenly thinking that it was laziness that prompted their desire to stay put, launches into a sharp rebuke of their behavior. They return to Moshe later clarifying that their intent was to lead the  Jewish people  in battle as chalutzim, armed soldiers. They would first build  sheepfolds for their flocks  then cities for their children. The order points to their  concern  with the welfare of their cattle rather than with  their children. Rashi notes that Moshe had to correct them and told them “what is of primary significance do first (i.e., build cities for the children) and what is secondary do second (building folds for the sheep and cattle)”.They realized and  agreed, planning to settle  their families first then their flocks and cattle in Transjordan until they return victoriously.

Rav Jacobson  cites Isaac Erama’s questions on Moshe’s initial reaction and his failure to apologize once the tribes’ intent is clarified. It appears that the ambiguity in the tribes request is what precipitated Moshe’s misunderstanding of their motives. Their words “Do not cause us to pass the Jordan” seemed to Moshe to be referring to their participation in the battle but, in fact, was later clarified to be referring to their participation in the allotment of the land. Isaac Erama concludes that Moshe did not apologize because he objected to the tribes disinterest in the holiness/spiritual uplifting that the Promised Land of Israel offers. Their choice of a inheritance was purely for materialistic, not spiritual, reasons. This point was driven home by Moshe when he  repeats four times  that the mission had to do with  activities “Before Hashem”.

The Midrash states that if gifts are not acknowledged as coming from Hashem, they will pass away. The descendants  of Reuvain and Gad were rich  but  never acknowledging the source. The  materialism that  prompted  them to live outside Eretz Yisroel never brought them happiness.

Rav Jacobson opines  that the message for all generations is that success and accomplishment is a gift from Heaven and a society based on materialism alone cannot survive. ”These tribes of Transjordan were the first to perish and disappear from history.”

Observations, thoughts and questions

For the first time we have the Jews not complaining but rather expressing a course of action to realize their desire and to help their brethren…

Perhaps the Reuvain and Gad descendants thought that Transjordan was a part of the Holy Land and, therefore, requested that it be their share…

When they say “If we have found favor in Thine eyes we would like this land (Transjordan) to be given to your servants…” the descendants  may be praying to Hashem rather than asking Moshe….

Perhaps Moshe's anger toward the descendants of Reuvain and Gad was based ,in part, on their disinterest in the very Land Of Israel that he yearned for but was denied entry into by Hashem...

Perhaps it was out of their concern for  Moshe  and his feelings that they insisted on not crossing the Jordan River--just like Moshe, who was told by Hashem that he would not be permitted to lead the Jews across the Jordan River into the Promised Land…

Why was it necessary to assign  each Tribe a specific territory and inheritance that needed to stay in the family? Possibly to…

• prevent any one tribe from  aggressively controlling the entire country
• match the territory with each tribe’s unique skills and personality
• create the familiar, prevailing Middle East social structure wherein each  clan/family had its  own defined territory and rules  

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

.

Rav Jacobson  cites Isaac Erama’s questions on Moshe’s initial reaction and his failure to apologize once the tribes’ intent is clarified. It appears that the ambiguity in the tribes request is what precipitated Moshe’s misunderstanding of their motives. Their words “Do not cause us to pass the Jordan” seemed to Moshe to be referring to their participation in the battle but, in fact, was later clarified to be referring to their participation in the allotment of the land. Isaac Erama concludes that Moshe did not apologize because he objected to the tribes disinterest in the holiness/spiritual uplifting that the Promised Land of Israel offers. Their choice of a inheritance was purely for materialistic, not spiritual, reasons. This point was driven home by Moshe when he  repeats four times  that the mission had to do with  activities “Before Hashem”.

The Midrash states that if gifts are not acknowledged as coming from Hashem, they will pass away. The descendants  of Reuvain and Gad were rich  but  never acknowledging the source. The  materialism that  prompted  them to live outside Eretz Yisroel never brought them happiness.

Rav Jacobson opines  that the message for all generations is that success and accomplishment is a gift from Heaven and a society based on materialism alone cannot survive. ”These tribes of Transjordan were the first to perish and disappear from history.”

Observations, thoughts and questions

For the first time we have the Jews not complaining but rather expressing a course of action to realize their desire and to help their brethren…

Perhaps the Reuvain and Gad descendants thought that Transjordan was a part of the Holy Land and, therefore, requested that it be their share…

When they say “If we have found favor in Thine eyes we would like this land (Transjordan) to be given to your servants…” the descendants  may be praying to Hashem rather than asking Moshe….

Perhaps it was out of their concern for  Moshe  and his feelings that they insisted on not crossing the Jordan River--just like Moshe, who was told by Hashem that he would not be permitted to lead the Jews across the Jordan River into the Promised Land…

Why was it necessary to assign  each Tribe a specific territory and inheritance that needed to stay in the family? Possibly to…

• prevent any one tribe from  aggressively controlling the entire country
• match the territory with each tribe’s unique skills and personality
• create the familiar, prevailing Middle East social structure wherein each  clan/family had its  own defined territory and rules  

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings On Parshat Balak

”Ma Tovu Ohalecha Yaakov Mishenosecha Yisrael”

“Ma paal Kayl”— “What G-d has wrought”

Overview

King Balak  of Moab  sends for Balaam the diviner, who resides in Mesopotamia, to curse  the Jews; in a dream, Balaam is told by Hashem not to go; Balaam persists; in a second dream Balaam is given free choice to go, but with certain restrictions; talking donkey incident; powerful and poetic prophecies and blessings instead of planned curses as Balaam morphs from a heathen seer to a true prophet (according to Don Isaac Abrabanel, 1437-1508); Jews worship pagan Baal-Peor (major Canaanite deity of thunder and fertility)  with its licentious ritual; Pinchas, grandson of Aaron, lances Zimri of the tribe of Reuven together with a Midianite woman (Cozbi) In flagrante delicto, as they publicly flaunt their behavior; twenty four thousand people die by plague.

Themes

·        We are given free choice in our behavior

·        A collection of “Reversals”, according to Professor Everett Foxx: a donkey becomes a kind of  prophet;  a prophet turns  into a fool; and curses turn  into blessings

·        Linkage  of  Israel’s  blessings with military successes (in last week’s Parsha); and Israel’s  behavior at Baal Peor with Balaam’s evil intents

Balaam’s behavior triggers Divine wrath

Balak, King of Moab, sends emissaries to  Balaam to  hire him to curse the Jews. Balaam tells the nobles to wait overnight. In a dream, Hashem tells him unequivocally not to go because the Jews are blessed. King Balak, reasoning that Balaam is holding out for a larger fee, sends more prominent nobles offering more money. Balaam tells them to  again wait again overnight in the hopes he will again hear from Hashem. He does and Hashem says “Since it is to call you that the men have come, go with them”.

Balaam rises at daybreak the next morning to saddle his donkey. Despite his exalted position as Prophet, he does it himself—hasinha mekakkeles es hashura—Hatred distorts proper behavior. But Hashem becomes enraged when he sees Balaam going with King Balak’s emissaries.

Some maintain that Hashem’s anger is kindled “Ki holech who”(because Balaam went)— the use of the present form (holech means going) hints at Balaam’s  (on)going, constant single-minded desire to do fulfill  Balak’s request to curse the Jews.

Rabbi B.S. Jacobson in his Meditations on the Torah, provides an overview :

Rabbi Isaac Erama(1420-1494)  notes Balaam’s tenacious repetition to Hashem of  the same request  to go when he should have categorically refused Balak’s invitation. Instead, he stalled and  his baser instincts got the  better of him

Ramban (1194-1270) and Seforno(1475-1550) interpret “Em likro lecha…”  to mean “if the intent was  to be only a consultant or advisor, then go with them”. Instead, Balaam chose to be  part of the plot.

Hakkatav V’hakkabala by Rav J.T. Meklenburg (1785-1865) observes that when Hashem tells  Balaam he can go He uses the phrase “lech  etam” meaning  just walk along with them, separate from them and  not to go  with the purpose of filling Balak’s request upon arrival. Similarly, the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) explains that the phrase  “lech etam” means to go but not to do exactly what they want. Instead, Balaam gets up early, saddles his donkey by himself , “Vayelech em…”  (“…and  he went with”).The Torah’s use of  the word em (instead of etam)  means  that Balaam went  being of one mind with them to be the one to curse the Jewish nation.

Franz Rosensweig (1886-1929) and Martin Buber (1878-1965) teach us the importance of  recurring phrases in communicating  the Torah’s  moral message. Here the recurring  root word  is YSF, to resume, starting anew. The Torah highlights for us the duplicity/arrogance of  Balaam first in his dealings with King Balak (who resumes sending more honorable messengers after Balaam rebuffs the first delegation) and then in telling Balak’s delegates to bide their time until Hashem  resumes the dialogue—hoping He would change His mind.

After he is granted permission to go along and bless Israel, the Torah describes the incident of the talking donkey in which Balaam resumes striking the donkey and in which  the unseen Angel of Hashem resumes passing, standing in a narrow place.

How to Understand the Incident of a Talking Donkey 

·        Nothing is impossible for Hashem.

·        Perkei Avos teaches us that the talking donkey  was made on day 6 of Creation, before Shabbos. This is one of the miracles of Nature that was provided for in advance as part of the cosmic plan

·        Rambam (1135-1204) and Saddya Gaon (882-942), noting Balaam’s seeming  lack of surprise at a talking animal, opine that  the incident  was a dream or a night vision

·        Shadal (Shmuel David Luzzatto,1800-1865) points out that the text does not say the donkey spoke human words. What it does  say is Hashem opened the mouth of the donkey. This incident of a braying donkey and an at-first-invisible Angel  is an example of (in modern psychological parlance) projective identification. Namely, Balaam at some level (unconscious) was projecting his own internal struggle over whether or not to go and curse the Jews

·        Torah mockery of those believing in magic as Balaam with all his alleged sorcerer’s  power is reduced to arguing with talking donkey

Is Balaam  good or bad?

On the one hand, he appears to be a learned, well-known non-Jewish follower and legitimate prophet of Hashem, and a person admired by some Jewish commentaries. Others see him as Balaam the Wicked with his haughtiness,  his  greed, and his attempt to “wait Hashem out” to grant him permission to go to Balak.

Do curses work?

Clearly, the ancients believed in the real power of blessings and curses. Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz notes that the Babylonian religion was filled with demonology. Certain individuals had the power to  change the will of the Deities  and  to secure prosperity or bring on calamity via their spells and incantations. A magician/sorcerer/wizard could predict the future, discover secrets and either bless or bring ruin.

But the Torah discredits superstition and belief in magic .If so, asks Nechama Leibowitz, why did Hashem try to stop Balaam or even  care about Balaam’s curses?

A number of commentaries  think that  stopping Balaam ‘s purpose  was to teach him a lesson. Joseph Ibn Kaspi (1279-1340) notes the psychological (rather than actual) damage to the object of a curse. Abrabanel opines that  cursing the Israelites would have catalyzed  the surrounding nations  to do battle with Israel on the strength of these curses. In Shadal’s view Balaam’s curses would have prompted Moab and its King Balak to boast of their success in warding off the Israelites. Furthermore, says Anselm  Astruc (?-1391) in  Midreshei Torah, the inhabitants of the land  (and the Jews themselves) would  (incorrectly) attribute any of the Jews’ sufferings to Balaam’s curse .

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz