Skip to main content

Balak 5767

It's well known that Bil'am is considered the paragon of evil by Jewish tradition. It's also a common experience that a read through this week's parashah hardly depicts Bil'am as such an evildoer - he is a sorcerer who is somehow somewhat conversant in engaging Hashem, who tells those who come to summon him that he'd like to oblige, but he can only do what Hashem tells him to do. After repeating this caveat, he goes, meets Balak, performs the rituals necessary to invoke Hashem, and blesses Israel, as Hashem instructs him. What's so bad about that, other that a little self-interest?

Rashi helps us see deeper into the text, teasing out the clues to Bil'am's real character by carefully exploring precisely what he says and how he says it. He uses as his guide the statement in Avot, chapter 5:19: Anyone who possesses these three traits is a disciple of Avraham, our father; (one who possesses) three opposite traits is a disciple of Bilam the wicked.
1: A good eye
2: A low spirit
3: A lowly soul
- these are the traits of Avraham our father

1. A narrow eye
2. A high (i.e., haughty) spirit
3. A wide soul
- these are the traits of Bil'am the wicked.

Rashi proceeds to find textual indication of each of these damning traits ascribed to Bil'am. The traits of both Avraham and Bil'am are described in almost tangible terms, with physical or quasi-physical attributes qualified by modifiers drawn primarily from the world of physical measurement and dimensionality. We can translate these terms into more familiar ones fairly readily. Avraham's traits are generousity, humility and temperance. Bil'am's traits are avarice/envy, pursuit of glory and rapacious desire. These very traits are singled out by Bar Kappara when he states: "Envy, (pursuit of) Glory, and (seeking to indulge) Desire take one out of the world". I understand this to meaning that these are the kind of traits that lead one to assess a situation with complete disregard for even the most obvious indications that one is 180 degrees wrong in one's assessment, as though one is in a world of one's own.

What's interesting in comparing the traits of Avraham and Bil'am is to note what's wide and what's narrow. The word tov, translated above as "good" (good eye), often means "big", "wide". What's wide and big with Avraham is the organ that senses that there is a reality outside of one's own life. The eye opened wide allows that world into one's life, making its claim and impacting one, and thus, the prideful and lustful capacities of the soul, ever ready to misstate the claims whence they spring, are kept in check. When the eye is close to a narrow slit, admitting only the select data which conforms to one's prejudiced conceptions of things, then there is no counterweight to the reassertions of the nefesh, that component of the soul most closely associated with our physicality. Nefesh actually means life, or more precisely, the life that flows through the throat as breath and pulse, so vulnerable, so constricted, so desirous of expansion.

But constriction begets constriction, and Bil'am, wanting to close his throat to the blessing welling up within him at G-d's behest, brings down calamity upon himself and his house, whereas Avraham, always ready to open his throat and praise Hashem and bless His creatures, reaps blessing from all the world.

In the words of this weeks antagonist: "How wide-open are your protective shelters, O Israel..." Let's open our eyes in wonder and invitation, so we may open our throats in song and holiness, and our spirits may soar to heaven.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The One (People) Who Must Not Be Named

Just as Balak brings Bil’am to consider his enemy from various vantage point, likewise does Parashat Balak allow us to view ourselves from the vantage point of others. The main story in Balak is of a single piece, and Am Yisrael appear only as foils for the central story – the interaction of Bil’am with Hashem. What is curious is that not only does Am Yisrael not appear as a real character in the story, we don’t even get a mention. Every time Balak or Bil’am refer to Am Yisrael in the non-visionary passages, they employ indirection: “this people”, “my enemies”, but never Yisrael. It almost feels that they are avoiding speaking the name, one which Bil’am, at least, employs so beautifully in his prophetic speeches. Now, recalling that this story of the interaction of other nations with Am Yisrael is being told in the Torah, I think the message is this: Yisrael is our name in the context of our covenantal interactions with Hashem, just as Hashem’s real name is used only in the conte...
1 comment
Read more

My G-d, a Navaho?

--> Shabbat Shirah, it’s time to sing. Standing on the edge of a Red Sea that has returned to its roiling nature, drowning the fleeing, terrified Egyptian charioteers, Am Yisrael is ecstatic and, with Moshe, breaks into song. They sang in unison a song that welled up from a prophetic vision of redemption that, our sages tell us, outstripped even the visions of Yechezk’el and Isaiah, both of whom “saw” Hashem enthroned on high. The song so permeated the very fabric of being that it is introduced with the imperfect mood of the verb – Az Yashir Moshe… “Then Moshe will sing”, as though the song is every ringing in the background of our Jewishness. So what did they sing? Pure poetry, and therefore, as difficult to feel confident in parsing as it must be even to attempt to imagine what they were feeling at that moment. And yet, we reprise it every day in our morning prayers, as part of Pesukei D’Zimra. Every verse of this song is fit for deep reflection; I’ve chosen...
1 comment
Read more

A Sure Bet

How to begin? This is a dilemma that many of us face repeatedly in various situations in our lives. But none of us have had to face it in quite the way that Hashem needed to confront the problem of beginning at the outset of the Torah. It’s not just that it had never been done before, but, rather, how do you begin when you have no beginning? Ein Sof , the One Without End, is also Ein Tachlit , The One Without Beginning. So the question becomes not only HOW to begin, but WHAT IS “beginning” for such a One? Kabbalah has already extensively dealt with the question of transition from the infinite to the finite, and the entire array and interaction of the sefirot and their various constellations are in part a response to this question. But in addition to the ontological question indicated above, there is an epistemological question of perhaps greater moment: How does Hashem begin the Torah such that people get off on the right foot? How does He avoid embedding the seeds ...
Post a Comment
Read more