Parashat Balak

Towards the opening of Parashat Balak (22:7), Rashi explains that the elders of Midyan abandoned their plan of hiring Bilaam HaRashah to curse the Jews because he could not immediately commit to the task. The Levush HaOrah explains that while Moshe Rabbeinu could communicate with Hashem at will (indeed, when Paroh begged Moshe to rid his country of Tzfardeiya, Moshe first asked Paroh, “when shall I pray for you.”) Bilaam could not and had to wait until nightfall. Once the Zikeinim recognized this weakness, they understood that Bilaam’s powers were no match for Moshe’s and retreated home.

The Sifri in ViZos HaBracha, as quoted by the Ramban in our parasha (24:1-2) lists the three differences between the prophecy of Moshe and that of Bilaam. Whereas Moshe could not anticipate the subject of Hashem’s message nor when Hashem would convey these messages (aside from those conversations Moshe himself initiated), Bilaam’s limited level of prophecy afforded him the anticipation of both the time of Hashem’s communications (though he himself could not initiate conversation) and the subject of His message. Lastly, the presence of Hashem’s presence physically harmed Bilaam (as the pasuk says, Nofel U’Glui Einayim) but did not hinder Moshe.

The combination of these two sources suggests not only that Moshe Rabbeinu’s powers of both prophecy and communication overpowered those of Bilaam, but also that the Umos HaOlam recognized this disparity. Yet Rashi explains (22:5) that Hashem revealed Himself to Bilaam so that the Goyim could not claim that they would have repented had He given them prophets like those of the Jews.

[Hashem] established prophets for them and [yet] they breached the boundaries of the world, for [after the Flood, the world] forbade illicit relationships, and [now Bilaam] advised them to relinquish themselves for the sake of licentiousness.

Rashi, BaMidbar 22:5

In an almost comical twist of fate, the very prophet the Umos expected to correct their wicked ways leads them even farther from Hashem! Yet according to Rashi, they can no longer complain, for Hashem communicated with them just as He communicated with Klal Yisrael, and they still went astray.

But does Bilaam’s prophecy really undermine the Pischon Peh of the nations? After all, Bilaam was not nearly as great a Navi as Moshe Rabbeinu; therefore, Hashem did not communicate with the Umos as He communicated with the Jews. Perhaps if the Umos had a prophet of Moshe’s stature they would have repented.

The Maharshal asks why the very appointment of Bilaam, who led his nation astray, was not itself grounds for Pischon Peh, for maybe had Hashem not given them any prophet altogether they would have remained on the right path. He answers that one should not confuse the unsurpassed clarity of Bilaam’s prophecy with the impiety of his advice. Although Bilaam’s conversations with Hashem were not as intimate as Moshe’s, they were nonetheless of parallel clarity. When Bilaam pronounced, “their G-d hates lewdness” (see Rashi, 24:14), he stated pure unadulterated fact. Therefore, Hashem conveyed His Will with equal clarity to both His nation ad the other nations. And when Bilaam advised the Moavim to relinquish themselves for licentiousness, the Moavim should have known disregard Bilaam’s suggestion. Thanks to Bilaam, they knew exactly what Hashem liked and what He hated. Yet ironically, Bilaam led them astray.

Perhaps Bilaam could have been as great a prophet as Moshe had he only regarded Hashem’s Word with the same level of esteem as Moshe did. Rather, Bilaam consistently sought to undermine Hashem’s Will. Although Hashem permits Bilaam to follow Balak’s messengers, He then angers after Bilaam leaves. Rashi explains, “[Bilaam] saw that the matter was bad in Hashem’s eyes, and he desired to go.” In other words, Bilaam did not follow the messengers in spite of Hashem’s disapproval but rather in light of this disapproval. Bilaam sought to act against Hashem’s Will, and therefore Hashem got angry.

How then did Bilaam really differ from Moshe? Moshe was the most humble man of his generation. Moshe and sacrificed his personal life, such as his relationship with his wife, for a closer relationship with Hashem. Bilaam, on the other hand, was the haughtiest man of his generation. He refused to admit to Balak or his messengers that he could not defy the Will of Hashem. He guaranteed his success and desired all of Balak’s money. And he constantly tried to manipulate and outdo the word of Hashem. Therefore, Hashem established close communication with His friend Moshe and eventually cut all communication from the contentious Bilaam.

But the Umos HaOlam should still have a gripe? Hashem never communicated with the Risha’im of Klal Yisrael; rather, He chose Moshe, the generations greatest Tzadik to lead the nation. Why then would Hashem go out of His way to appoint Bilaam, the biggest Rashah of his generation, to lead the Umos HaOlam? Isn’t Hashem then trying to distance Himself from the Goyim?

Perhaps we can consider Bilaam the archetypical Goy just as we consider Moshe Rabbeinu the ideal Jew. Moshe’s life involved the pursuit of Olam HaBa, and to reach this goal, Moshe negated his personal interaction with Olam HaZeh. But Bilaam was not a Jew, and his life’s goals differed from Moshe’s. Bilaam pursued Olam HaZeh and his wide heart and tall spirit suited him perfectly for his pursuit, for they enabled him to disregard the Will of Hashem and follow his own eyes and heart.

Therefore, if Hashem were to appoint any gentile other than Bilaam, the Umos would still have a complaint. Bilaam’s lifestyle represented the accomplishments the Umos all sought to achieve (albeit they could only strive to achieve, much as Jews can only strive to achieve the accomplishments of Moshe Rabbeinu). But an obedient prophet, a prophet who negates his Olam HaZeh for a relationship with Hashem, has nothing to teach the Umos HaOlam for he lives an incomparably limited life.

Of course there are still good gentiles, and some gentiles even earn shares of Olam HaBa. Yet this does not mean that their goal in life is to earn a share of Olam HaBa. The very existence of Man in Olam HaZeh emanates from the insubordinance of Adam HaRishon, from his appetite for the fruit of the Eitz HaDa’as.

And the man said, “the woman whom you gave me, she gave me [fruit] from the tree, and I would eat it.

Beraishis 3:12

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said, [This pasuk] does not say “and I ate it” but rather “and I would eat it,” [meaning] “I ate it once, and I would eat it again if I had the chance.” Reish Lakish said, Man was not expelled from Gan Eden [into Olam HaZeh] until he blasphemed G-d [as Rabbi Abba explained].

Beraishis Rabbah, 19:12

Bilaam HaRashah epitomizes this essence of man’s presence in Olam HaZeh, and he appropriately portrays Man’s distance form G-d. Man is left with no excuse, his presence in and pursuit of this world is by no means ideal. In fact, it is even destructive, as Bilaam proves. Conversely, Moshe Rabbeinu epitomizes the goal within our journey back to Gan Eden, along the Derech Etz HaChaim. May we discover in both Moshe and Bilaam, whose stories are both chronicled in our timeless Torah MiSinai, our purpose in this world, the goals we strive to achieve, and the pitfalls we must avoid.

Good Shabbos.