To Have Eyes and Yet Not See – the Curse of Bilaam?

For those who are interesting in helping those who are in need at this time, please be aware that The Shul of Bal Harbour, under the leadership of Rabbi Shalom Lipskar, has created a central fund to be dispersed as needed directly to the victims and their families at thechesedfund.com/shulofbalharbour/miamitragedy. In the merit of our Teshuvah, Tefillah and Tzedakah, May we merit to see no more tragedies. 

Parshat Balak 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Another terrible tragedy has befallen members of our greater Jewish community, as well as many of our Florida brothers and sisters in Surfside and beyond. What message is Hashem trying to tell us? Why so costly a message? What did all these people do to have this be their fate? 

There is no way to answer these questions. We mourn, we pray, we assist where we can, and we hope for all who are injured to recover, and for all the mourners to find a path forward. 

Historically these kinds of events were meant to inspire introspection in those who survive or who are untouched. Why did this happen to them? Why not me? Again, unanswerable questions. 

However, we are also enjoined to heed the fact that God is talking to us. In some way He is telling us to remember Who is really in charge. 

The Talmud suggests that Bilaam was blind in one eye. There are subtle hints to this in the text, such as when Bilaam says “'This is the word of Beor's son Balaam, the word of the man with the enlightened eye.” This translation is from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s “Living Torah” and on the words “enlightened eye,” Rabbi Kaplan includes the following note, first attributing his translation to the view of Ramban and Midrash Aggadah. 

“Shethum in Hebrew. Or, 'future seeing eye' (Lekach Tov), 'seeing eye' (Targum; Saadia); 'open eye' (Rashbam; Radak, Sherashim; Rashi); 'true-sighted eye' (Septuagint); 'sleepless' (Ibn Janach), 'evil eye' (Zohar 1:68b); 'dislocated' (Rashi); 'blinded' (Sanhedrin 105a; Niddah 31a). 

The question can be asked in either direction – if he was blind in one eye, how could the other commentaries refer to him as one with great vision? If he is referred to in the text as this great visionary, why would the Talmud go to any length to suggest he is blind? Perhaps three Chassidic teachings can “enlighten” us as to what may be taken from this information. 

1. A person can not truly achieve prophesy without having dedicated oneself to holiness, without having sanctified oneself to serve God fully and completely, and without being dedicated to purity. Bilaam, who dedicated everything about himself to impurity, was thus challenged from achieving his potential as a prophet for the nations of the world. God therefore blinded him in one eye to prevent him from sinning with that eye, to allow him to focus his energies for his remaining eye in the proper direction. Because it was all that remained, it became the source of ALL of his vision – thereby making the lone eye enlightened (told over in the name of the Baal Shem Tov). 
2. Every person needs to have two eyes – one for seeing how great, and mighty is the Master of the World, and the other is for seeing one’s own lowliness and need for humility. Bilaam understood God’s greatness, as evidenced by what he told Balak’s emissaries. But he was unable to see his own need for humility. Thus, whether he was truly blind or not, he was as if he only had one eye. (Harav HaZaken MiNeshchiz) 
3. The Midrash has God asking Bilaam – “If your intent is to destroy the nation of Israel, who will keep My Torah?” and Bilaam answered, “I will.” God thus had Bilaam’s donkey stray from the path 3 times (שלש רגלים) (22:33) including the one time when Bilaam’s leg (רגל) was smashed against a wall, and also had Bilaam strike the donkey 3 times (שלש רגלים) (22:28,32) so Bilaam could receive a subtle hint of the mitzvah to go to the Mishkan/Mikdash for the שלש רגלים – Three Festivals. Bilaam was being told, a person who is blind in one eye, and crippled in one leg, who is such a Baal Mum (blemished individual) is exempt from the mitzvah, and unable to fulfill his intent of replacing the Bnei Yisrael as Torah observers. (Peninim Yekarim) 

Along similar lines, the Chozeh of Lublin noted in last week’s parsha, on the verse describing the red heifer that it needs to be one “that does not have a blemish and never had a yoke on it,” that this is also a note to human beings. A person who views himself or herself as having reached the pinnacle of achievement in this life, who has no flaws and no need for improvement has identified as a person who does not carry the burden of the yoke of Heaven – עול מלכות שמים. The Chozeh would say, if the person had even the smallest burden of the yoke of Heaven, the person would see a person who has far too many flaws, far too many spiritual מומים (blemishes) and would know there is still much to achieve and much to accomplish. 

 Bilaam was a man possessed with talents and blessed with gifts. As humble as he thought he was, and as special a relationship he believed he had with God, he couldn’t get over his own ego that drove him to want to curse the Bnei Yisrael, even as he knew God would not let him. God’s instruction to him didn’t produce a verse such as we’ve seen regarding Moshe’s humility. We never hear “And Bilaam was exceedingly humble” because he wasn’t! 

Whether he was literally blind in one eye, or whether he was simply blind to his own flaws, we can learn from Bilaam a simple litmus test for ourselves as individuals and ourselves as a people. 

We are once again facing 17 Tammuz, the 3 Weeks, and unless the Messiah comes, the prospect of another Tisha B’Av. The redemption, though we are to wait for it and anticipate it daily, is not yet here. 

We have one life to live – do we view ourselves as people who have arrived and therefore don’t need to take steps to shake the heavens to change the status quo? Or do we aim, in our lives, to challenge God to redeem us and bring us back to the way they were/are supposed to be? Do we do so through taking increased steps towards serving Him better? A greater commitment to Torah and Mitzvot? 

With an ever increasing amount of suffering in the world, we like to think we’re so close to the end. But we are not going to get there resting on any laurels alone. If we had the laurels, we’d have arrived already. The challenge is for all of Am Yisrael to step up our game (so to speak) and our commitments. We must feel the yoke of Heaven as a burden we carry always, so we will always be proceeding forward and upward in our relationship with Hashem. 

May suffering come to an end, and may we merit to see the salvation and comfort that was promised to us so long ago.

Singing A Song About Water, and Moving Forward

Parshat Chukat 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Despite the traumatic events of Mei Merivah (the Waters of Strife) from which we see Moshe and Aharon fated not to lead the people into the land of Canaan, along with a lesson of Chapter 20 not to complain about food or water when asking to go through the Land of Edom (e.g. verse 17), we nevertheless once again see a complaint emanating from the people in the early part of Chapter 21 in which they complain about a lack of food and water (21:5). This is even after Aharon had died, and we were once again told that certain actions at Mei Merivah caused Aharon to have to die (20:24). 

The snakes come, and we see the creation of the copper snake which helps thwart the snakebites from being deadly (21:6-9). 

It is in the aftermath of these narratives that we are told the people once again gathered at the well (21:16). At this gathering, the Torah shares a brief song which starts with the following words: אָ֚ז יָשִׁ֣יר יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶת־הַשִּׁירָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את עֲלִ֥י בְאֵ֖ר עֱנוּ־לָֽהּ: “It was then that Israel sang this song: Rise, O well, respond to [this song].” 

The opening verse here is of course most reminiscent of the Song of the Sea, with two notable differences. (1) Moshe is not participating in the song, and (2) we are not told that the song is directed towards God. 

A number of commentators direct our attention to the Midrash Tanchuma on this section (which is quite similar to Bamidbar Rabba 19:26), which begins by addressing those two questions, and goes on to explain more about this song. (All translations of the Midrash are from sefaria.org)

“For what reason is Moses not mentioned there? For the reason that he was being punished because of the waters; and no person praises his executioner/speculator (“examiner” or “overseer”) (this word is written out in Hebrew as ספקלטור). And why is the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, not mentioned there? The matter is comparable to a governor who made a banquet for the king. The king said, “Will my friend so-and-so be there?” They told him, “No.” He said, “[Then] I also am not going there.” Also here the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Inasmuch as Moses is not mentioned, I also will not be mentioned there.” 

The Midrash goes on to describe how the Nesiim (princes) would channel the water for their encampments, and that these water channels divided between the sections of the camp (North, South, East, West surrounding the Mishkan) such that “a woman who had to go to her companion from one standard to [another] standard went by ship, as stated (in Ps. 105:41), ‘they traveled the river by tsiyyot.’” 

The Midrash continues noting that these rivers “would cause endless varieties of green herbage and trees to grow, as stated (in Ps. 23:2), “[He makes me lie down] in green pastures; [He leads me beside still waters].” All those the days that Israel was in the desert they used it (i.e., the well). Therefore, they rendered praise for it [with the song ending] (in Numb. 21:18), “the well that the princes dug.” (Numb. 21:18, cont.:) “From Midbar (literally, desert) to Mattanah,” [so stated] because in the desert [the well] was given (nittenah) them to use as a gift (mattanah).” 

Before going into a detailed exposition of what the names of the locations mentioned in the following verses (21:18-20) mean for the future, with a Temple centered in Jerusalem, the Midrash equates the waters of the well with the Torah, both of which were specifically given in the wilderness, both of which were aimed at providing a form of sustenance for the people. 

1. Why was [the well] given in the desert? Because if it had been given to them in the land, the tribe in whose border it was given would have argued and said, “I have a prior claim to it.” For that reason it was given in the desert where all would have an equal claim to it. 

2. And for what other reason was it given in the desert? Just as a desert is neither sown nor cultivated, so is the one who receives the words of Torah. They remove from him the yoke of the government and the yoke of earning a living. Just as a desert does not grow arnona so are children of Torah (i.e., Torah scholars) free [from it] in this world. I.e., by accepting the yoke of Torah, such scholars are exempt from government taxes and the need to earn a living. 

3. Another interpretation [of why it was given] in the desert: Who is the one who fulfills the Torah? One who uses himself like the desert, [i.e.,] whoever makes himself like a desert and removes himself from everything [that might distract him]. 

From all of this, perhaps we can draw a few important lessons. 

A. Trauma is trauma. Singing about the well in Moshe’s presence would have been insulting and very hurtful. 

B. God cares about His children, even if they have done wrong, and even if they have negative consequences coming from their errors. However we understand Moshe’s role and outcome from the incident with the rock, a sensitivity was in order both from the people and from God to not expect Moshe to participate in any homage to the life-sustaining nature of the well. 

C. The best leaders do their best to take care of their people, sometimes at their own peril. Moshe gave up everything for the people. The Nesi’im did their part to channel the water to their people. Systems were put in place to help friends visit one another, despite the waterways that divided the camps. 

D. Wilderness existence was dependent on God, but it wasn’t only a food supply of water and Manna. Other food was brought into the mix, which kept the people grounded in the real world, knowing that their miraculous existence was a stop-gap, but never meant to last forever. 

E. There is great merit to carrying the metaphor of the wilderness into one’s existence, whether it’s to have a clean slate (as we pray for on the High Holidays), whether it’s being open to new ideas, whether it’s to see that the wilderness belongs to nobody, and therefore it’s truly available for everybody (no one has exclusive rights to it), or that in the right alignment, it can bring a unique kind of freedom from some responsibilities. 

F. In one form or another, Torah is supposed to bring a fulfillment to one’s life, as is knowing where one’s physical sustenance comes from… 

This song is largely overlooked in the annals of Torah study, but its lessons of sensitivity, and its charge for making life meaningful can speak to us no matter where we are in life, and no matter how much more we want to get closer to the Almighty and to our fellow man.

Leaders We Deserve

Parshat Korach 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The Haftorah describes the aftermath of the first battle in which the newly anointed King Shaul proves himself in the eyes of the nation who had received his appointment, requested by them, with a particular lack of fanfare. An air of cynicism is even recorded at the end of Chapter 10, as some people questioned whether “This one will save us.” 

In Chapter 11, Shaul emerges as a true leader in bringing a great salvation to the people of Yavesh Gilead (who return the favor at the very end of Shmuel Alef), and the prophet Shmuel suggests that the nation re-accept Shaul as king, now that they’ve seen his abilities. It is at that ceremony that Shmuel gives a speech eerily similar to the one Moshe gives in our parsha, when Moshe is confronted by Datan and Aviram, who challenge Moshe’s abilities as, in their opinion, a failed leader who was unable to fulfill his promise of bringing the people to the Promised Land. In Shmuel’s case, he speaks of how the people rejected his leadership, as the last Shofet (judge), in favor of a king, whose leadership style will necessarily impose on certain freedoms the people have enjoyed. Moshe is pointing to the unfairness of the claims made against him because the failures of the people to make it to the Promised Land are because of their behavior and rejection of God, rather than Moshe’s personal failures. 

Shmuel (12:3) : Here I am; bear witness against me before the Lord and before His anointed; whose ox did I take, or whose donkey did I take, or whom did I rob; or whom did I oppress, or from whose hand did I take a ransom, that I hide my eyes therewith, and I shall restore to you.

Moshe (Bamidbar 16:15): Moshe became very angry. He prayed to God, 'Do not accept their offering. I did not take a single donkey from them! I did not do any of them any harm!' 

Shmuel is reassured that the people harbor no ill will, they affirm that they accuse him of nothing of the kind. They simply want a king – they are perfectly happy with Shmuel as the prophet/spiritual leader 

Moshe, on the other hand, is patently ignored by those he is addressing; his honesty is irrelevant because their hatred of him runs too deep. They are accusing him of lording over them, when he knows very well he has only been self-sacrificing for the people. 

To be sure, both leaders are less suggesting that they never received anything from anyone than they are certainly claiming that they never used their king-like-status to their advantage to appropriate or lay claim to any property, tangible or intangible, that belonged to someone else. 

Shmuel is noting how he never took bribes in order to favor one person over another in judgment. Moshe Rabbenu is noting that even when he first came, when he didn’t want the job of taking the Israelites out of Egypt, he could have demanded a company car (or donkey), that all expenses getting him to Egypt should be covered by the Israelites. But he didn’t even do that! 

Additionally, Chizkuni notes Moshe’s final expression in this verse, “I did not do any of them any harm!” and suggests that is a personal response to Datan and Aviram, who were responsible for telling Pharaoh of Moshe’s having killed the Egyptian and he never sought any kind of vengeance for their effectively forcing him into exile. 

Both Moshe and Shmuel saw a serious upheaval of the Jewish communal institutions of their time, as we might see it, through the passage from bondage to freedom, from being slaves to Pharaoh to becoming servants of the Almighty in Moshe’s time, and the transition from libertarianism and anarchy to a monarchy and a more centralized order in Shmuel’s time. 

The key point that Moshe and Shmuel may have in common, relevant most to our era, is their lack of conflicts of interest. Their agenda, as it were, was “to help the people serve God in the most meaningful way, under the guidance of Torah and halakha” with no ulterior motive. 

Anything they saw getting in the way of those noble goals was a distraction. This is why each leader, in his own time, threw the same distraction back at the people. “Don’t accuse me of having a conflict of interest, or of overstepping my role, or of usurping power not given to me naturally by my role. I know who I am, I know what my role is, I know my position visavis the people, and I have always given my utmost to the nation in helping foster the right kind of relationship they are to have with God.” 

Even God said to Shmuel, “The people didn’t reject you in asking for a king. They rejected Me.” Shmuel was perturbed at what he was seeing, but God had to tell him it wasn’t personal between the people and him. It was an affront to God that they were asking for a king, but not a rejection of the prophet and that which he represented. 

We should be blessed to have leaders who, like Moshe and Shmuel, are altruistic, know their job, fill their role as best as possible, don’t take advantage of the people, and really want the best for the people. Our leaders should similarly be blessed that they not be held back by distractions or by things which get in the way of their doing that which they are tasked with doing – growing Torah institutions, teaching Torah, raising people up, being a moral, spiritual and emotional source of support, guiding and inspiring people to greatness in their personal relationship with God, and being an example and a model of what it means to live a life of Kiddush Hashem, sanctifying God’s name as much and as often as possible.

Kalev, the Hero

Parshat Shlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the most admirable characters in all of the Torah is Kalev ben Yefuneh. What makes Kalev so special? He was a true mentsch, a quiet leader, a family man. He was a silent hero who spoke when he needed to. He was honest, and committed to the Jewish people and the land of Israel. He knew a good thing when he saw it and wasn’t afraid to stand up for the truth. 

Divrei HaYamim I 2:19 tells us he was the father of Hur, making him the great-grandfather of Bezalel, the main artist behind the craftsmanship of the Mishkan. 

An entire study can be made of the different names and identities the Talmud and Midrashic literature ascribe to Kalev. Similarly, the Tanakh mentions his wife a few times, and the midrash says each wife (Azuvah, Efrat, etc) were all additional names for his wife Miriam, the sister of Moshe and Aharon. 

If it is true that all of these names really identify the same individuals, it is fascinating that the Tanakh would mention them. The commentaries like to explain that some of the names were given or taken on account of events that took place or the impact the individual had on the society. 

For example, Radak on Divrei HaYamim I 2:18 quotes the Yalkut Shimoni who explains that the person listed as Kalev son of Chetzron was the same Kalev that we know as the son of Yefuneh. He is listed as “ben Yefuneh” because “pinnah atzmo me’atzat meraglim” - he distanced himself from the negative report of the spies. The play on words linking “Yefuneh” to “pinnah” is the source of his name being listed differently. 

In this explanation, Yefuneh does not refer to his father, but to his own behavior and character. 

Kalev’s most admirable characteristic was his ability to not fall prey to the tide of “what everyone else was doing” because he knew his cause to be just. He never lost his positive outlook, he knew what his mission was, and he was a tremendous believer in God and in the cause of his mission. He understood intuitively that the Land of Canaan was the “promised land” for a reason. 

While Kalev is generally linked with Yehoshua as one of the pair of “spies” who stood up against the others, ultimately Kalev is the real hero of the story, because he was able to stand up for his convictions alone, against the mob. Only later was he joined by Yehoshua. 

Rashi quotes the midrash in 13:16 when he explains why Hoshea’s name was changed by Moshe to Yehoshua: so that his name would mean “God will save you” from the negativity of the spies. Netziv notes that Moshe’s prayer was more general than that - Moshe was praying for Yehoshua to be able to overcome the battle of his own convictions, as Moshe did not know which way the spies might swing. This comes in the aftermath of the challenge Yehoshua faced in not knowing the proper way to respond to the prophecies of Eldad and Meidad – Yehoshua wanted them to suffer a repercussion, while Moshe embraced their having been gifted prophesy. 

The reality is that after the spies gave their initial negative report, only Kalev reacted to say “Let us go up, for we can defeat them!” (13:30) Clearly Kalev did not experience a battle of conviction. Where was Yehoshua? Possibly contemplating which way to go. The others respond that there is no hope, for the land is self destructive and the inhabitants are giants. (13:31-33). 

The night passes, the nation cries, and in the morning they complain to Moshe and Aharon. Only after Yehoshua sees how distraught Moshe is, does he finally join Kalev’s side and claim the land is good. (14:6-7) 

God singles out Kalev in 14:24 to say only he will inherit the land, and in 14:30, God says only Kalev and Yehoshua will get to see the land, of all the people of this generation. (see also 26:65, 32:12) 

In Devarim 1:36 we see again that Kalev inherits part of the land because of his unique role, while Yehoshua goes unmentioned in that context. Two verses later (1:38) and later on (Devarim 3:28 and in chapter 31), we see the main reason Yehoshua has a role is because he replaces Moshe as leader, a role it seemed he would take on even before the spy incident, one of the possible outcomes of the prophesy of Eldad and Meidad. 

Ramban notes that Kalev and Yehoshua’s merits are listed separately, as outlined here, because they were very different people. Yehoshua, Ramban suggests, was much wiser than Kalev, which is why he is listed first in 14:38 – out of respect for his wisdom. But it is not always the wisest who is the bravest – which is why Kalev is singled out, without Yehoshua, for having a “different spirit about him.” (14:24) 

We live in a world which is stifling debates and conversations. Sometimes the mob is too overwhelming, and the information that is sent our way is too overpowering, that no different from the experience of the Bnei Yisrael, the ten overpowered the two, causing devastation to an entire generation. 

The people only learned how wrong the ten were when it was too late. 

But this is our challenge – to weed through the noise to get to the truth. We all know that Kalev, and ultimately alongside him, Yehoshua stood for the truth. Recall that the spies didn’t lie in their actual reports. Moshe had asked them to find information, and they mostly provided that information. But it was their analysis PLUS their slander of the land (it’s a land that consumes its inhabitants) which destroyed them and the people because they demonstrated a lack of faith in God, and a lack of belief that the land God had promised was a good one, and that He would never have led them astray or to a place not good for them. 

Kalev reminds us that standing for what is right, not folding to peer pressure, even when everyone is against you, is one of the greatest characteristics a person can have, when you stand for truth. 

There is an element of irony even in that, because God’s 13 attributes of Mercy are repeated by Moshe in his prayer on behalf of the people, but even in repeating them, Moshe leaves out some of them. One of the words absent in Moshe’s recall is אמת – truth. He didn’t ask God to utilize אמת in His judgment of the situation, because if God were to use “Truth” in His judgment, He would have had to destroy everyone involved in accepting the report. Instead, God chose to bide His time, have that generation die over a 40 year period, and give the land to the next generation, those who were not responsible for accepting the lies of the spies. 

The next generation were to inherit the land, led by Yehoshua, and one additional man from that original generation lived to inherit the land: Kalev, who stayed true to himself and did not let a mob of spies or a mob of the people get in the way of his relationship with God and אמת.