Bila'am as "Darth Vader"
Parshat Balak, 5764
Although Bila'am learns at the outset that God is displeased with his readiness to curse the Jewish people at Balak's behest, (1) he eventually receives Divine Permission to travel to Moav, with the proviso that his going is contingent upon his following precisely a Divine Script. (2) Assuming that Bila'am was prepared to adhere to the contents of God's Revelation, it is difficult to understand why it becomes necessary to additionally subject him to the personally humiliating experience involving his donkey (BaMidbar 22:22-35.) While 22:34, in which Bila'am engages in a form of confession regarding his actions until this point, "…I have sinned, because I did not know that You were Standing in order to meet me on the way, and now, if it is bad in Your Eyes, I will go back/repent," suggests that he has been acting improperly, including during the period following his receiving permission to go to Moav, it is unclear what he has to repent for. In 22:21, Bila'am gives no indication that he intends to ignore the instructions that he receives in the previous verse, and the prophet simply gets up the following morning and sets out with the Moavi emissaries. If God Remains angry as a result of Bila'am even having broached the subject of cursing the Jewish people (22:12), then why does He Allow the expedition to take place subsequently? Consequently, it is difficult to understand the very next verse (22:22), where we read that God is angry with Bila'am for going with the Moavim, when this is exactly what God had explicitly Authorized him to do in 22:20.
RaShI, RaShBaM and Rabbeinu Bachaye argue that despite the fact that God Conveyed His obvious Opposition to Balaam's attempts to curse the Jews in 22:12, the prophet nevertheless continues to want to do Balak's bidding, as indicated by his second request in 22:19, and for this reason he experiences his donkey rebuking him leading to his repentance. However, such an approach is surprising, particularly for a commentator like RaShBaM, who usually is quite committed to remaining faithful to the literal meaning of the biblical text. Even if we would imagine that insisting that Bila'am continues to be insincere at the outset of his journey qualifies as a "Peshat" (literal meaning) approach to the verses in question, since God would never Become angry with someone for no cause, it appears that such a conclusion can only be reached as the result of deduction and pre-existing prejudice, rather than interpretation of overt textual clues.
Chizkuni calls attention to two subtleties in the text that may account for the Divine Anger against Bila'am in 22:22. In the first place, the commentator suggests that since in verse 20, within the context of the second prophecy that Bila'am receives from God, the words "Im LiKroh Lecha" (if they come to call you), reflect a Heavenly Begrudgingness that is designed to indicate to Bila'am that he really should not be going to Moav. Chizkuni realizes that this is a difficult interpretation to advance in light of the fairly clear-cut manner in which permission is being granted to Bila'am, and therefore feels the need to point to a parallel situation that is interpreted in a like manner. The commentator draws our attention to BaMidbar 13:2, in which Divine Permission is given to Moshe to send spies into Israel. The operant terminology in this second instance is also tentative and qualified, when interpreted from a particular perspective, with Moshe being told "Shelach LECHA Anashim" (send, BASED UPON YOUR OWN HUMAN NEEDS, men, i.e., according to YOUR lights, on the basis of YOUR judgment). Although one could argue that such a subtlety-the prepositional pronoun "Lecha" could be understood just as well to indicate that the sending of spies is for your personal benefit and improvement, as in Beraishit 12:1, (3) and therefore would require a high level of insight and perspicacity in order for the comment to be decoded as a negative rather than positive comment-should not be lost on someone as spiritual as Moshe, should we necessarily expect Bila'am to function at such a high level of sensitivity to Divine Hints?
The apparent assumption that Bila'am's prophetic competency is formidable enough to allow him to recognize even what God may be Conveying to him indirectly, may explain why BaMidbar Rabba 14:19 infers that Bila'am was in fact just as great a prophet as Moshe, based upon a close reading of Devarim 34:10. "There will not arise again a prophet like Moshe in Israel…"-among Israel there will be none like him; however, among other peoples and societies, such individuals can arise, Bila'am serving as the prime example. Tanna DeVai Eliyahu Rabba #28 claims that Bila'am was even superior in prophecy to Moshe in certain respects.
But these Midrashic views with respect to Bila'am are highly counterintuitive. He clearly can only receive prophecy in dreams, at night, generally taken as a sign of a lower level of Divine Communication. It therefore follows, that if the reason for Divine Displeasure is Bila'am's failure to "get" that God really did NOT want him to go to Moav, it appears as if Bila'am is caught in a Divine "Catch-22" whereby he is not able to discern God's Intention due to his relatively inferior prophetic abilities, and is nevertheless held accountable for his failure to do so.
Chizkuni's alternative interpretation is easier to defend. He notes that HaShem's Permission is dependent upon Bila'am saying only what God Authorizes him to say. Consequently, Bila'am's negative attitude leading to his donkey's critique and his confession and repentance, is engendered by his immediately accompanying the Moavite emissaries, without insisting upon being told precisely what he was going to be required to say in accordance with God's Wishes. His lack of interest in what God will Tell him to say is interpreted not only as indifference, but even as hostility, indicating that Bila'am continued to have every intention of cursing the Jews as he originally had planned. A parallel interpretation to Chizkuni's second approach is offered by Ohr HaChayim, who pays careful attention to what Bila'am tells and doesn't tell the Moabites about what he dreamt the previous evening. In 22:21, HaShem clearly Delineates the limitations of what Bila'am will be able to do, i.e., only speak in accordance with what God Tells him to say. However, the prophet makes no mention of this the next morning, but simply goes with the Moavim back to Moav. Being made aware of such a caveat may have been sufficient cause for the Moabite emissaries to cancel the mission from the outset and thereby eliminate the necessity for the manipulation of either Bila'am's mind or his body. (4)
Furthermore, if Bila'am had taken seriously the restriction that HaShem was Imposing upon him, it is questionable whether Bila'am would have ever agreed to be a party to Balak's designs. Particularly because he should have recognized that God's Protection of the Jewish people (5) would make impossible Balak's plan for cursing them, had Bila'am been prudent, he should have wondered whether it was even personally safe for him to travel to Moav. To first get Balak's hopes up that the king's plan of cursing the Jews has a chance of succeeding by Bila'am's agreeing to come to Moav, only to end up dashing those same hopes by blessing rather than cursing the Jews, could very easily have put the prophet at risk of being punished by the royal wrath that he stirred up. (6) While Bila'am tells Balak repeatedly that he is empowered to say no more or less than God Wishes, (7) we have no indication that he had any guarantees regarding his personal safety. Must we assume, that similar to Jewish prophets charged with delivering deeply unpopular messages, (8) once Bila'am gets his marching orders from God, it is futile for him to try to resist, and therefore concerns for personal safety are considered irrelevant?
An even bigger issue that arises once we start attributing to Bila'am, in the spirit of the Midrashim quoted above, such extraordinary spiritual sensibilities, is the question why he fails to recognize the oneness and uniqueness of the Jewish God and the need to worship Him exclusively, i.e., why doesn't Bila'am become Jewish? In this regard, it would appear that Bila'am's situation provides stark relief to the character of Yitro, Moshe's father-in-law. Even if some commentators maintain that Yitro ultimately chooses to return to his homeland, possibly without having converted to Judaism, (9) no claims are made that this "Midianite priest" (10) was a prophet of any sort. Shouldn't more be expected of Bila'am, assuming that he was not consciously avoiding acknowledging what he knew to be true? Understanding Bila'am in this manner calls to mind the Darth Vader character in the Star Wars trilogy. Was Bila'am so enamored of the "Dark Side", that he lost all objectivity, and could not extract himself from its thrall, despite powerful counterindications?
Bila'am's obstinacy and dedication to the destruction of the Jewish people, and indirectly the Deity in which they believe, was not altered by even the miracle of his uttering blessings in spite of himself (23:5 ff.) 31:16 attributes the terrible sins and subsequent plagues of Ba'al Peor to Bila'am and it is for this reason that ChaZaL explain that the prophet's death is associated with those of the five Midianite kings (31:8) whose peoples participated in this sexual and idolatrous travesty. (11)
Bila'am consequently serves as an example of an individual who despite his brilliance and competence-perhaps as a result of the arrogance that success engenders in some individuals-becomes locked into a worldview from which he finds it impossible to escape. His mercenary tendencies cause him to sell his services to the highest bidder, regardless of the justness of the cause, or his own personal beliefs. Once he experiences this type of life, he acts as if, and perhaps even convinces himself that, he truly believes it, ultimately sowing the seeds of his personal destruction.
Shabbat Shalom, and may we always scrutinize and reflect upon our cherished ideas, religious views, and cultural and ideological orientations. While it is important to be consistent, we should have the intellectual humility to realize the possibility that we may be mistaken, and that it is never too late to reconsider and recommit to new goals and ideals.
(1) BaMidbar 22:12.
(2) 22:20.
(3) See RaShI.
(4) The debate in Sanhedrin 105b between R. Eliezer and R. Yonatan as to whether the means by which God Effected the phenomenon whereby an individual powerfully committed to curse the Jewish people, wound up blessing them instead, was the insertion of an Angel into Bila'am's body, or some sort of inanimate device that was implanted temporarily in his throat. Those who refuse to recite the prayer, "Mah Tovu Ohalecha Yaakov…" (how goodly are your tents, Jacob…) since they are uttered by an individual who, had he been able, would have cursed the Jews, assumes R. Yonatan's perspective. If the words were not those of Bila'am's at all, as is maintained by R. Eliezer, but rather those of some Divine Messenger, the words should be considered even more significant, rather than less so.
(5) 22:12.
(6) 23:11, 25; 24:10.
(7) 22:38; 23:26; 24:13.
(8) See Yirmiyahu 4:19; Mishna Sanhedrin 11:5. The case of Yosef telling his dreams to his brothers in Beraishit 37, and their subsequent violent reaction becomes the paradigm of such interchanges.
(9) See Shemot 19:27; BaMidbar 10:32. It is unclear whether Yitro and Chovav are identical. If they are to be considered to be involving the same individual, then the text in BaMidbar, that implies that since there is no response by Chovav, a.k.a. Yitro, to Moshe's final challenge, that he may have acquiesced to remain, per force should be informed by the text in Shemot, which clearly states that he did return to his homeland. Although such an approach is not compelling, nevertheless the conclusion to be drawn is that Yitro did leave, possibly rejecting the need to convert. RaShI, however, on Shemot 19:27 suggests that Yitro returned to Midian to convert his fellow family members to Judaism, assuming that he himself had undertaken the commitment to become part of the Jewish people. But, it is necessary to reiterate once again that such a contention is not conclusive. If the two characters are not identical, then even if Chovav stays, it would appear that Yitro departed, once again either having or not having become a Jew.
(10) Shemot 3:1; 18:1.
(11) See Sanhedrin 106.