Thursday, June 20, 2013

Bilaam's Lads and Facing Failure

Parshat Balak

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.  

2 comments:

  1. 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...)

    שפתי 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:

    ReplyDelete
  2. Netziv on the Torah:

    העמק 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:

    ReplyDelete