by Dr. Avigdor Bonchek
Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues
Parshas Balak)This week's sedra is devoted entirely to the gentile prophet, Bilaam's, attempt to curse the People of Israel. As we know his curses were turned to blessings by G-d.
(After Bilaam's confrontation with his trouble-making donkey, the angel of G-d says to him) "Go with the men, but only the word that I shall speak to you that shall you speak."
Go with the men: Rashi: Along the way that a man wants to go, on it he is taken.
This is an important lesson in Jewish philosophy and psychology. A person's freedom of will is so central to Jewish belief that our Sages tell us that one shouldn't expect divine intervention to save a person from his own foolhardy or evil acts. Not only does the person bear full responsibility for them, but also his efforts to implement them may even be made easier for him. This is certainly ironic. Why would G-d make it easy for man to do evil?
Can you explain this?
In the meantime, while you're thinking, let's look at the Rashi-comment itself and ask some questions about it Rashi waits to make his comment on this verse. But we have an earlier indication in this parasha that "the way a man wants to, on it he will be taken." Where is that?
An Answer: See verse 22:20 where we are told that G-d came to Bilaam and told him: "If the men came to summon you, arise and go with them, but the thing that I shall speak with you that is what you shall do."
So already before he embarked on his way Bilaam had G-d's approval. Why didn't Rashi make this comment on that earlier verse?
Can you think of an explanation?
Look closely at the Hebrew words in these verses.
An Answer: There is a subtle, but important , difference between the words "im" or "imum" and "et" or "etum." The word "et" in Hebrew means to be with someone, or something, but only in a physical sense, in physical proximity. "im" on the other hand, means to be with him in spirit and not just in body. See for example Rashi on verse 22:35 "with ('im") the officers of Balak." Rashi says there "He was as happy to curse as they were." So in answer to our question: why didn't Rashi make his comment on the earlier verse we can now understand that while in verse 22:20 Bilaam received G-d's approval to go with ("itum")them, for G-d had said "laich itum" go with them physically, but not with the same intention that they have.
On the other hand, in our verse, after Bilaam persists in going after all the warnings he received, then he is told "laich im ha'anashim" "Go with (im) the men. Go with them, in mind and spirit, as you want to go! This is the appropriate verse to make this comment on, for only here do we see full divine assistance to Bilaam on his evil way.
What about the philosophical question we asked at the outset of this analysis?
I would suggest that as the Sages tell us, the heart, one's intentions, is the central issue in serving Hashem. The Sages said: " G-d wants one's heart." Once a man desires to do something (for good or evil) he is dependent on many factors (physical and human) to succeed. G-d will not manipulate these factors to have a man saved from his evil intentions. The whole purpose of this world's existence is to do G-d's will. We can be more precise if we say "The whole purpose is to intend to do G-d's will." Because the only power we really wield is in our intentions. So just as G-d does not interfere with an evil man's actions (Hitler was able to destroy a lot before he was stopped); so too G-d does not interfere with a man's intentions. Perhaps this is G-d's way of allowing us to see first hand the results of our evil intentions. As is said "we made the bed, we'll have to sleep in it."
This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
For information on subscriptions, archives, and