THE WEEKLY SIDRA- BALAK Rabbi Moshe Greebel Several times in Mikra (Scripture), we find that events simply do not ‘seem’ to follow in a rational sense, until a very close assessment of the actual LaShon HaKodesh (holy tongue) portrays to us the differences a few linguistic subtleties are capable of making. And, it is only through their complete knowledge of LaShon HaKodesh, that our Rabbanim of blessed memory, were able to interpret these enigmatic sections of Mikra into more comprehensible accounts. A prime example of this principle of deeply examining the linguistics, is given in this week’s Sidra, concerning the elders of Moav and Midyan, who attempted to contract the services of Bila’am to curse the B’nai Yisroel, at the command of Balak the king of Moav: “And G-d said to Bila’am, ‘You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people; for they are blessed!’” (Bamidbar 22:12) Yet, shortly after in Passuk (verse) 20, we read: “And G-d came to Bila’am at night, and said to him, ‘If the men come to call you, rise up, and go with them; but only that word which I shall say to you, that shall you do!’” (ibid. 22:20) Now, the two P’sukim (verses) seem contradictory. Did HaShem order Bila’am to go to Balak, or did He order him not to go? For an answer to this predicament, we turn to the Vilna Gaon (his Excellency, Rabbeinu Eliyahu Kramer 1720- 1797) of blessed memory, also known as the Gra (Gaon Rabbeinu Eliyahu). In order to resolve this difficulty between the two P’sukim, the Gra utilized his vast linguistic knowledge in the following manner. In LaShon HaKodesh there are two words which can translate into the term ‘with’- Im (Ayin Mem Sofis) and Es (Aleph Sav). What is the difference? The Gra begins with the term ‘Im,’ explaining that its use signifies that the intent and action of two separate entities are the same. An example of this from the Torah, could be drawn from an Eved Ivri (Jewish servant) in the time of a Bais HaMikdash (Temple), who wishes to work for his master beyond his six mandatory years: “And it shall be, if he says to you, I will not go away from you; because he loves you and your house, because he is well with (Im) you.” (Sh’mos 15:16) On the underlined in the above Passuk, the Gemarah in Kiddushin 22a has this to say: “Our Rabbis taught, ‘Because he is well with you’: he must be with (i.e., equal to) you in food and drink, that you should not eat white bread and he black bread, you drink old wine and he new wine, you sleep on a feather bed and he on straw. Hence it was said, “Whoever buys an Eved Ivri is like buying a master for himself.”’” In essence, ‘He is well with (Im) you’ shows that while the Eved Ivri has an obligation to show deference to his master, the master has an obligation to show deference to his Eved Ivri. In this sense, both entities are alike. On the other hand, expounded the Gra, the term ‘Es’ is different, because it signifies that there is not equality between two separate entities. This principle can be seen from the following Passuk which deals with a Shor HaNiskal (ox to be stoned to death for having killed a man): “If an ox gores a man or a woman, that they die; then the ox shall be surely stoned, and with its flesh, it shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted.” (Sh’mos 21:28) Now, the term for ‘And with its flesh’ in this Passuk is ‘Es B’Saro,’ upon which the Gemarah in Bava Kama 41b has this to say: “From where do they derive the prohibition against the making use of the hide (of the Shor HaNiskal)? They derive it from ‘Es B’Saro, where Es signifies a secondary aspect, meaning, ‘together with that which is joined to its flesh’, that is, its hide.” Here, the expression ‘Es’ denotes not making use of the hide of a Shor HaNiskal, which is secondary to the directly stated prohibition in the Torah of not eating its flesh. That is, while the prohibition of the eating of its flesh is openly stated, the prohibition of benefiting from its hide is implied. By classification then, each entity is different. And so, this difference of ‘Im’ and ‘Es’ can be applied to the circumstances of Bila’am, instructed the Gra. Initially, after the elders of Moav and Midyan requested that Bila’am go with them to Balak, HaShem ordered him: “…..‘You shall not go with them (Im); you shall not curse the people; for they are blessed!’” (Bamidbar 22:12) That is, emphasized the Gra through the term ‘Im,’ HaShem initially ordered Bila’am not only not to go physically with the elders of Moav and Midyan, but also not to go with their intent of cursing the B’nai Yisroel. Yet, continued the Gra, when Bila’am, like a spoiled child, kept up his nagging in order to go, HaShem then said to him: “…..‘If the men come to call you, rise up, and go with them (Es); but only that word which I shall say to you, that shall you do!’” (ibid. 22:20) Finally consenting metaphorically to Bila’am going with the elders of Moav and Midyan, HaShem utilizes the term ‘Es’ to inform him that he may physically accompany these elders, but may not be with them in their intent to curse the B’nai Yisroel. However, what did this miscreant Bila’am do in the end? The Passuk informs us: “And Bila’am rose up in the morning, and saddled his donkey, and went with (Im) the princes of Moav.” (Bamidbar 22:21) Through the use of the term ‘Im,’ the Torah tells us that he not only went physically with the elders of Moav and Midyan, but with the same intent to curse the B’nai Yisroel. This can be seen from the Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah 20-12 on the above Passuk: “….. This serves to teach you that he (Bila’am) rejoiced at the misfortunes of Yisroel as much as they (elders of Moav and Midyan) did.” On the expression ‘And went with (Im) the princes of Moav,’ Rashi comments: “His heart was as their hearts.” Bila’am’s end however, was pronounced by the Malach (celestial emissary) who stated: “And the Malach of HaShem said to Balaam, ‘Go with (Im) the men; but only the word that I shall speak to you, that you shall speak.’ So Bila’am went with the princes of Balak.” (ibid. 22:35) That is, concluded the Gra, at this point, through the use of ‘Im,’ we see that since there was no redemption for Bila’am’s hatred of Yisroel, he was given to do as he wanted- to go physically and with the same intent as these elders. And, in the end, he would be punished with them as well. Rashi on Bamidbar 22:35 explains it this way: “The way in which a person desires to go, is the way upon which he is led.” And so, we see that through true linguistic comprehension of Mikra, deep and profound principles otherwise un-discovered, come to light. But, what is really important here, is to realize that nothing in the Torah is a matter of happenstance or coincidence, even the interchanging of words like ‘Im’ with ‘Es.’ Every single letter in the Torah HaK’dosha is there for a very specific purpose and point, nothing ever being random. And, grasping this very principle of nothing being arbitrary, inevitably leads one to a fuller sense of awe of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and His Torah. May we be given to delight in the Torah for many years. May we soon see the G’ulah Sh’laimah in its complete resplendence- speedily, and in our times. Good Shabbos. The National Council of Young Israel youngisrael.org
Posted on: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:54:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015