Parshat Balak
by Rabbi Avi Billet
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Bilaam is one of the
more despicable characters in the Torah. Even before he unsuccessfully attempts
to curse the Israelite nation, he simultaneously lies to Balak's messengers and
goes against the wishes of the God to Whom he has expressed his devotion, when
he agrees to go with the king of Moav's emissaries.
When he does head
out on his journey, the Torah tells us, "And God was very angry that he
went, and so an angel of Hashem stood on the road to obstruct him, as he was
riding on his donkey, and his two lads were with him." (22:22)
Two lads? In the
whole story, this is the only mention of anyone, other than Balak's men,
accompanying him in any way. These two lads play no role in helping him pack,
no role in helping him travel, and there is no reference to them in the tales
immediately following, neither with the "talking donkey" nor when
dealing with Balak upon arriving in Moav.
Rashi teaches the
important lesson, which the Siftei Chachamim calls a "suggestion of derech
eretz (proper way-of-the-world conduct)" - as opposed to an obligation - that
an important person should not go out alone, especially on a journey.
Some might compare
this to the story of Avraham (Bereshit 22), who similarly traveled with two
lads. Rashi there explained the obligation incumbent upon an important person
not to travel alone. While the
importance of Bilaam versus the importance of Avraham is a relative debate,
their tales are nonetheless comparable.
They both travel by
donkey, preparing the donkey for travel alone, they both go in the morning
(though Avraham seems to leave earlier), they both go on a few-days journey,
they both don't know how the story will turn out. And they both bring two
n'arim (young lads) to accompany on the journey, presumably as servants or
helpers.
The difference with
the lads is that in Avraham's case, they are prominent in the story. They
accompany him, they stay with the donkey as he ascends the mountain with
Yitzchak, and he returns to them at the end of the tale as they accompany him
on his journey home.
In Bilaam's case,
they make one appearance: only when the angel is standing before him on the
road, as quoted above. They do not embark with him at the beginning of his
journey, and they are not present for his return journey. It is almost as if
they don't really exist.
When he leaves his
home, he goes with "officers of Moav." When he arrives at his
destination, he is with "officers of Balak." His lads are either inconsequential
or, perhaps, no longer present.
If they were
inconsequential, why mention them?
Perhaps Bilaam's
lads are mentioned on account of what was about to take place. Following their appearance, Bilaam has his
fateful encounter with his faithful donkey, an encounter, says Maimonides (Guide
to the Perplexed II:42) which took place in his mind as a prophesy.
Whether the donkey
actually spoke or was perceived as having spoken, the one who comes out of the
story looking like, shall we say, a donkey, is Bilaam!
The officers of Moav
do not seem to be present when Bilaam converses with the donkey. But our verse
would indicate that as the story begins to unfold his lads are present.
Somewhere between
their appearance here and his arrival in Balak's land, they disappear. From his
perspective, this is a bonus. Had they arrived with him, they would have
undermined every thing Bilaam tried to do (not that anything worked) because
they saw him at his weakest and knew how imperfect he was. A donkey had bested
him in an argument!
The proof that he is
not an important person, as Rashi proposed, is that he went home alone!
Were it true that an important person doesn't travel alone, there is no way he
could have traveled, in either direction, alone.
Did they abandon
him? Did he fire them? Did he kill them? All possibilities are suggestive. They
might have left of their own accord when they realized he was a crock.
If they were fired,
we must understand why he had them in the first place. Maybe Bilaam wanted to
put on airs suggesting he was important, and having two young servants may have
served that purpose through being part of his otherwise very unimpressive
entourage.
When he had his
unfortunate episode with the donkey, however, the gig was up. No one who had
witnessed that could be part of Bilaam's party. They were either fired (or
killed?) to keep his secret safe. Until... he demonstrated for Balak how
worthless he was, as Balak said, "And now, escape to your place. I said I
would honor you, but God has denied you any honor." (24:11).
We are always
presented with opportunities to prove our worth or to fail. May we be blessed to be successful in our
endeavors. May we also be blessed that when we fail, we have the opportunity to
pick up the pieces so that even those who saw us at our weakest moments will
not be able to say, as Bilaam's lads could have said about him, that we have no
worth. Because we are all of infinite value.
May we be blessed to
tap into that value and make the most of our lives.
The Shach on the Torah suggests they may have been killed by the angel (or that they were not really young men, but Bilaam's two yetzers...)
ReplyDeleteשפתי כהן על במדבר פרק כב פסוק כב
ושני נעריו עמו. אלו הנערים לא נזכרו לו קודם, שהיה לו לומר וישכם בלעם בבוקר ויקח את שני נעריו עמו, ולא נזכרו אחר כך. ראיתי מי שפירש והוא רוכב על אתנו כתיב, כמו איתן מושביך, כלומר רוכב על איתנו, ושני נעריו הם שני יצריו ננערו ממנו, שאפילו יצר הרע לא חפץ בזה. גם יש מי שפירש שאלו שני נערים היה לומדם בחרשים כדי שיסייעוהו, ולזה היו שנים אחד לקסם ואחד לחרש, ומתו בלהט החרב של המלאך, לזה אמר וילך שפי כתרגומו יחידאי:
Netziv on the Torah:
ReplyDeleteהעמק דבר על במדבר פרק כב פסוק כב
(כב) ושני נעריו עמו. כבר למדו מזה חז"ל להתנהג בד"א שלא לילך בלי לויית שני משרתים. וכדאי' ברבה. אבל לכאורה הוא פלא הרי הלך עם השרים. ותו מדוע לא כתיב בתחלת הענין וילך עם שרי מואב ושני נעריו עמו. אבל מזה למדנו דמתחלה מוכנים היו להפרד בבואם למושבות ישראל. והשרים הלכו בדרך המלך. ובלעם נפרד מהם והלך בארחות עקלקלות. והכל כדי שלא לראות מושבות ישראל. ומש"ה הכין מתחלה שני נערים. וע"ע בסמוך בפסוק ל"ה. ובזה מיושב מה שלא נפלאו שרי מואב בראותם זה הפלא מן האתון וכל הענין. אלא כדברינו שלא ידעו מכ"ז כלל. ועדיין יש להתבונן למאי הודיע הכתוב שהלכו שני נעריו עמו. אם בשביל ללמדנו דעת ד"א הלא טוב לנו ללמוד מאברהם אבינו שהלך עם שני נעריו וכמבואר בבראשית רבה בפ' עקידה. אלא כדי להבין עוד מדוע לא חשו הנערים להנהיג את האתון על הדרך. ומזה נלמוד דגם המה אע"ג שלא ראו את המלאך מכ"מ נפל עליהם פחד כמו שהי' בחנני' מישאל ועזרי' בעת שראה דניאל את המלאך והמה אע"ג דלא חזו מזלייהו חזו ויברחו בהחבא. כך הי' נערי בלעם מבוהלים ונדהמים מרוב פחד. ורק בלעם דבאמת רב גוברי' שהרי הזדקק לדבר עם המלאך אח"כ וגם נדבר עם ה'. ע"כ לא נבהת מזלי' ולא הרגיש מאומה. אמנם הי' לבלעם להבין מפחד הנערים שלא דבר ריק הוא. וכן ממעשה האתון שלא הסכינה בכך. וזה הי' באמת תוכחת האתון. אבל בלעם הקשה לבו שלא יחת מפני כל. וכסבור שיש שר לישראל עומד לנגדו. אבל הוא אין לו לירא ממנו. עד שראה מלאך ה'. והבין כי הוא המלאך משרים הראשונים. ואין בכחו להלוך נגד רצונו. ע"כ התרפס לפניו. וענין החרון אף וגם דיוק לשון כי הולך הוא. יבואר לפנינו פסוק ל"ב: