Bilaam’s true character came to the fore as he demonstrated his implacable greed. It was all about money and honor. Chazal (Pirkei Avos 5:19) draw the distinction between the disciples of the wicked Bilaam and the disciples of Avraham Avinu. Students invariably attempt to emulate their mentor. Bilaam possessed three base qualities which represented his character; these were the distorted principles upon which he built his flawed life: ayin raah, evil eye, jealousy, begrudging the prosperity which others achieved and personal gain at the expense of others; Ruach gevohah, haughty spirit, displaying arrogance as self-importance, pride and an ability to manipulate people for his own benefit; nefesh rechavah, insatiable greed, willingness to do anything – even curse others to satisfy his material desires. This is Bilaam – these are his students. Avraham Avinu characterized the direct opposite and his students sought to emulate him. It would appear from the Mishnah’s question, “Wherein lay the distinction between Bilaam’s students and Avraham’s students, that there was some aspect of commonality between the two? They lived in two different worlds. When were they ever together that one should ask for a distinction between the two sets of students?
Horav Meir Chodosh, zl, illuminates Chazal with a powerful – and frightening – statement. We might be led to think that one must look for Bilaam’s students in one part of town and Avraham’s students in a completely different part of town. One will never see them together, since they are so diametrically different from one another. Sadly, this is not true. The Tanna of our Mishnah is intimating that Bilaam’s students might very well be found in the same bais hamedrash as Avraham’s students. They may be in the same yeshivah – but one follows Bilaam, manifesting greed, arrogance, and manipulation of others. It all depends on how one acts. If he acts like Avraham, then he is his student. If his character traits are flawed, if his middos are deficient, then he is Bilaam’s student – even though he is learning in the same bais medrash as Avraham’s students.
Doeg and Achisofel represent such brilliant scholarship marred by character flaws. Doeg was a chief advisor to Shaul Hamelech. A prominent Torah scholar, he was known for his sharp intellect and mastery of Torah. Yet, despite having achieved the pinnacle of Torah erudition, he misused his wisdom. His most infamous act was his role in the massacre of the city of Nov, the city of Kohanim. After David fled from Shaul, Doeg informed Shaul that the Kohanim of Nov had aided David Hamelech by giving him food and Golias’ sword. This led Shaul to order the slaughter of the city, an atrocity that Doeg executed (Shmuel 1 21-22).
Achisofel was no different. He was a brilliant advisor to David Hamelech, renowned for his wisdom. His advice was always on target. His flawed character destroyed him. When Avshalom, David’s son, rebelled against the monarchy, Achisofel joined him. Indeed, his strategic counsel would have led to Avshalom’s success, but Avshalom rejected his advice, leading to his despair and eventual suicide. His arrogance and bitter resentment drove him to treachery. Despite his wisdom, his personal vendetta against David clouded his judgment and precipitated his downfall. They were classic examples of Bilaam’s talmidim, who might have been sitting on the same bench in the bais hamedrash with Avraham’s talmidim. I would suggest that they sat “differently.” Their attitudes bespoke their characters.
