Ibn Ezra suggests that G-d did not want Bil'am to go, as G-d said initially, but when Bil'am asked a second time, G-d let him go if he wanted to. (See N. Leibowitz, 1982, pp. 311-315.) This approach follows the idea in the Midrash that G-d allows people free will to go the way they choose. Yet, as G-d did not want him to go, G-d was angry at him for choosing to go. Ramban rejects Ibn Ezra's view for two reasons. One, just because a person is a nudnik and repeats his question this is no reason for G-d to change his mind. And, two, if G-d allowed Bil'am to go, then how he could have punished him for choosing to go. Furthermore, in the end Bil'am was not free to curse the people, 23:5,16.
Ramban (on 22:20,35) suggests that G-d wanted Bil'am to go with the messengers but this was only after he had heard that he was not to curse the Jewish people. Thus, on the first occasion, G-d told Bil'am that he could not curse the Jewish people, and on the second occasion, G-d allowed Bil'am to go in order to bless the Jewish people. G-d was angry with Bil'am not because he went but because he did not inform the messengers that he was not going to curse the Jewish people but to listen to G-d. Furthermore, G-d was angry since Bil'am gave the messengers the impression that G-d gave him permission to curse the Jewish people. After G-d sent the malakh, G-d gave permission to Bil'am to continue with the messengers, according to the Ramban since Bil'am understood that he was to tell Balak that he was only going to say what G-d told him, and this is what he did, 22:38. N. Leibowitz (1982, pp. 308-311) quotes various commentators who find textual support for this approach, but I wonder that if G-d really wanted Bil'am to bless the people, why did He not tell Bil'am in the first conversation that he could go with the messengers. G-d could have said on the first occasion do not curse the Jewish people but say everything that I want, instead of having two separate conversations.
Isaac Arama (quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1982, pp. 311,312) offers a third approach. He argues that Bil'am request to curse the Jewish people was reprehensible, but on the first occasion, G-d answered without getting angry due to G-d's goodness. G-d told him that the people are to be blessed (22:12) and Bil'am was supposed to understand that his request was inappropriate. However, when Bil'am asked a second time, G-d was angry at him for having the nerve to ask again. G-d said he could go but this was to make a fool of him and to punish him. With this approach, G-d never changed His mind, but G-d does not seem to be angry with Bil'am when G-d responded to Bil'am's second request, 22:20.
I agree with Isaac Arama that Bil'am's requests to curse the Jewish people were incomprehensible if Bil'am was really a prophet of G-d. Was Bil'am really a prophet of G-d? Midrash Rabbah (20:1) explains that Bil'am was the exception to the rule, that really there were no non-Jewish prophets, but there had to be one in order that the nations of the world could not make a claim that G-d had not given them a prophet. Thus, Bil'am was the single non-Jewish prophet and he was to teach the non-Jews not to commit idolatry. Yet, we never hear of Bil'am's works in this area, and all we know of him is that a "prophet of G-d" wanted to curse the Jewish people. I doubt that Bil'am was a prophet.
If Bil'am was not a prophet, how can we understand this episode as Bil'am told the messengers that G-d would speak to him that night, and G-d spoke to him? One clue is from S. R. Hirsch's insight who writes, (1989, on 22:9) “it is by no means necessary to assume that Bil’am expected or even asked for this communication from G-d. What Bil’am said “what G-d will say to me” seems entirely just a phrase in the mouth of Bil’am. At least the messengers of Balak and especially Balak himself took G-d’s refusal as having no other meaning than: I will not go with you, my ambitions and interest are not yet satisfied.” S. R. Hirsch understands that Bil'am would always put on a show, but this time G-d really spoke as opposed to his usual acts where Bil'am just pretended that G-d was speaking to him. I think one can extend this idea that Bil'am was pretending to speak to G-d.
The two conversations recorded in 22:9-12 and 22:20 were part of Bil'am’s act as a magician. Could Bil’am really be able say that G-d would speak to him at night (22:8,19)? No. These claims show that he was faking these conversations. It is possible that Bil'am lied to the messengers and told them that G-d had spoken to him and what is recorded in 22:9-12, and 22:20. Or, it is also possible that the first set of messengers heard the whole discussion but thought that G-d was really speaking to Bil'am. Bil'am told them to stay with him that night, as 22:8 ends by recording that "they sat with Bil'am." This is usually understood that they just spent the night with Bil'am, but literally it means that they were seating together, which means that they heard the conversation between G-d and Bil'am. Thus, 22:9 records that when "G-d" spoke to Bil'am, "He" asked, "Who are these people with you?" meaning the people sitting next to you. Bil'am explained what the messengers wanted and "G-d" told Bil'am that he could not curse the people since they were blessed (22:12). With this possibility, the messengers experienced a great performance by the master magician Bil'am.
In the morning, Bil'am told the messengers that he could not go with them, 22:13, which meant to the messengers that he wanted more honor (Rashi on 22:13) or more money (S. R. Hirsch). Even though the messengers might have thought that they heard that "G–d" said not to curse the Jewish people, this was not the end of the story for them since they believed that Bil'am could change G-d's mind. One of the "beliefs" of pagan magic is that magician can change the wishes of the divine. For example, Balak had Bil'am try to curse the Jewish people in different places, even though he had already given a blessing.
The second set of messengers returned with more promises, 22:15-17. Bil'am told them that if they gave him great wealth, he could not do anything contrary to G-d, but he would speak to G-d again, 22:18,19. This statement by Bil’am was part of the bargaining process, and was no sign of Bil'am's virtuousness. If Bil’am had really spoken to G-d by the first set of messengers, then he would have just rejected the second set of messengers without saying that he would speak to G-d that night. Instead, Bil'am now wanted to accept Balak’s offer, and thus, he needed "permission" from G-d. He told the messengers to stay the night, 22:19, but here the Torah does not record that they were "sitting with Bil'am." Bil'am was then told by "G-d" that he could accompany the messengers, 22:20. In this case, the messengers probably did not hear this "conversation" between G-d and Bil'am. This change of G-d was not surprising to them since this was the belief of the pagan magic. Bil'am had no problem arranging these two conversations with G-d since he invented the conversations. G-d did not change His mind, since G-d had never spoken to Bil'am.
(Note, most likely Bil’am told Balak’s messengers the “conversation” recorded in 22:20 since in 24:12,13, Bil’am tells Balak that he had told Balak’s messengers that he would only do what had G-d had told him to do and this message is recorded in reference to 22:20.)
A proof that Bil’am made up these two conversations is that the Torah never refers to them as a dream. If they had been a real conversation between G-d and Bil’am, then the Torah would have recorded that G-d spoke to Bil’am in a dream, as in Bereshit 20:3 by Avimelek and in Bereshit 31:24 by Lavan. In addition, in the first “conversation,” while one can understand 22:9 as G-d making an introductory question, still it should have been Bil’am speaking first to G-d if this was a real conversation.
After these two “conversations,” Bil’am left with Balak’s messengers to curse the Jewish people, and G-d was angry, 22:22. Not only did Bil'am pretend to speak to G-d, but also, he was going to curse the Jewish people! G-d sent the malakh to threaten Bil'am, and Bil'am got the message. Bil'am then sincerely asked G-d whether he should continue with the messengers, 22:34. G-d agreed since Bil'am had been transformed by the donkey and G-d wanted the people to be blessed. This was the only time that G-d had granted permission for Bil'am to go on the mission.
When Bil'am met Balak, he told him that he would only say what G-d would tell him, 22:38. Balak understood this statement as part of Bil'am's act, and hence he wanted Bil'am to attempt to curse the Jewish people. However, Bil'am was speaking sincerely this time (also in 23:12, 23:26, but not in 22:18), but as he was still not a prophet he did not understand what G-d wanted. (In 24:12,13, Bil'am was being disingenuous. He refers to his conversation with the messengers, that he said he would only say, what G-d wanted, but at that time this statement was part of the act.)
After the incident with the donkey, Bil'am no longer claimed with absolute confidence that G-d would speak to him, as he had previously claimed with the first and second set of messengers. Thus, Bil'am told Balak, "Perhaps G-d will grant me a manifestation, and whatever he reveals to me I will tell you," 23:3. After really speaking to G-d after the incident with the donkey, he could only say perhaps G-d will speak to me, and 23:4,16 record that G-d chanced to appear to Bil'am since G-d was not "obligated" to speak to Bil'am (Milgrom, 1990, p. 195).
If Bil'am made up these conversations with the messengers, why are they recorded in the Torah? The answer is that the following story with the donkey makes a mockery of pagan magic and the messengers set the stage for this mockery since they show the belief and respect for pagan magic, see Alter, 1981, pp. 104-107, and our discussion below on 22:23-35, "The amazing donkey."
I have been questioned that one cannot maintain that the two conversations recorded in 22:9-12, and 22:20 did not occur. My answer would be that this idea is similar to the Rambam's (Moreh, 2:42) claim that all cases by a malakh, such as by the talking donkey, were visions and did not occur. In this case, it is part of the act of magicians to claim that they speak to G-d, and thus 22:9-12 and 22:20 do not mean that G-d really spoke to Bil'am on these two occasions. In addition, The Torah describes events as the people who are experiencing the events understand them and as the messengers believed that G-d really spoke to Bil'am, the Torah states that G-d spoke to Bil'am. Another example of this phenomenon is by Yaakov when he referred to his adversary in the middle of the night as a malakh, and even though he later learned that it was Esav, the Torah maintained Yaakov's initial perspective when recording the episode, see our commentary on Bereshit 32:25-31 "Who fought with Yaakov?")
Alter, Robert, 1981, The art of biblical narrative, New York: Basic Books.
Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.
Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society
No comments:
Post a Comment