The main character in our parsha is Bilaam. This parsha, however, is called Balak after the evil king who invited Bilaam to join him in cursing and destroying the Jews. This emphasis implies that the individual who is maliciously manipulating behind the scenes is more ruthless than he who does the actual cursing. Regrettably, we are often confronted with people who put on a veil of piety and religious superiority while subtly slandering others in such a manner that no one would ever connect them to any malevolent activity. They incite others to do their destructive work for them. These…
Back to Home -> Balak ->
Rashi cites the Midrash Tanchuma which explains that the angel’s threefold appearance symbolizes that Bilaam’s efforts to curse the Jews, descendants of the three Avos, Patriarchs, were all in vain. It was as if each time a different Patriarch blocked the path of Bilaam’s donkey. The first time the angel appeared, ample space remained for the donkey to escape on either side. This indicated that had Bilaam wished to curse Avraham’s descendants, he would have had two options. He could curse the offspring of either Avraham’s son, Yishmael, or of Avraham’s wife, Keturah. He was not, however, permitted to curse…
The “mouth of the she-donkey” — or the miracle of the she-donkey’s speech — is mentioned as one of the ten supernatural phenomena which originated during the period of time between the end of the sixth day of Creation and the commencement of Shabbos. We can glean profound lessons from the necessity for such a miracle. We would like to place emphasis upon the actual statement the she-donkey made and the lessons we learn from it. Horav Yitzchak Rabinovitz, z.l., who was better known as Reb Itzele Ponievezer, used the following homiletic illustration to admonish a group of ill- mannered…
Horav Chaim Ehrentrau, z.l., points out that the three places at which the angel stood opposite Bilaam, barring his path, symbolize man’s three points of digression from freedom towards his ultimate loss of bechirah, free-will. In the beginning, the road towards sin appears to be a wide opening, from which it is easy to turn away to the right or left — or even turn back. This was Bilaam’s original situation. He could have returned to his home and redeemed himself. The sinner who remains adamant, continuing along his path of evil, encounters a narrower path. Although return from this…
Bilaam’s statement seems enigmatic. How could it be considered sinful if, in fact, he was not aware of the angel’s presence? The commentators explain that this ignorance is in itself a sin. There are situations in which one must be acutely cognizant of who he is and before whom he stands. For example, a child can never justify striking a parent. Similarly, the king’s closest aide can not claim that he is not aware of the king’s identity. Likewise, a prophet must always be cognizant of the presence of the Eternal. For Bilaam to assert that he was unaware of…
Bilaam emphasizes to Hashem that he had instructed Balak to erect seven altars. Rashi explains that Bilaam emphasized the number of altars for a specific reason. By virtue of erecting seven altars, Bilaam sought to negate the combined efforts of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, who had built seven altars through their combined efforts. Bilaam foolishly thought that he could equate his altars to the altars erected by the Avos, Patriarchs, by merely constructing the same number of alters. Horav D. Feinstein, Shlita, suggests that perhaps Bilaam attributed a special significance to the number seven. Since Bnei Yisrael had seven altars…
Rashi explains that Hashem does not scrutinize the sins of Bnei Yisrael. He attempts to look away from their iniquities as much as possible. Horav D. Kronglas, z.l., questions Rashi’s statement based upon various instances in the Talmud in which it is clearly stated that Hashem does, in fact, scrutinize our sins. He cites specific cases in which it is clear that oversight is not one of Hashem’s attributes; on the contrary, He is very exacting in His judgement. Horav Kronglas explains this contradiction in the following manner. People tend to have two distinct standards for judgement: one for their…
Bilaam offers a noble response to Balak which indicates a deep reverence for Hashem’s imperative. On a superficial level, there is no difference between Bilaam’s statement and our Patriarchs refusal to transgress Hashem’s command. Based on Bilaam’s actual words, the Alter of Kelm Z”l distinguishes between Bilaam’s intent and the approach of the Avos. Bilaam said, “I cannot go beyond the word of Hashem.” He refused to challenge Hashem’s literal words, but he nonetheless sought every opportunity to convince Hashem to grant him permission to go. Hashem percpetion that it was Bilaam’s desire to go, enabled him to leave….
When Bilaam set out on his journey to Balak, who desired is services in order to curse the Jewish nation, Hashem sent an angel with an unsheathed sword to hinder him. The donkey was miraculously able to see the angel, while Bilaam could not. The angel blocked the donkey’s path three times. After the first time, the donkey veered off the path, Bilaam hit him. This recurred when the donkey pressed Bilaam’s foot against a fence. The third time, the donkey, having nowhere to turn, settled down on the ground only to be hit again by Bilaam. When the donkey…
At first glance it appears, that Bilaam smote the donkey simply in order to turn her onto the correct path. The sequence of pesukim, however, seems to indicate that he smote the donkey in response to her ridicule, a public demonstration of lack of respect. “And Bilaam said unto the donkey, for you have mocked me, if there were a sword in my hand, I would now kill you.” (22:29) It seems incredible that Bilaam would want to kill his donkey for exhibiting disrespect toward him. Indeed, as Horav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik Z”l explains, this is the nature of an…