Balak 5772 - English

by Rabbi Gustavo Kraselnik
Kol Shearith Israel Congregation, Panama

Balak and Balaam constitute an inseparable duet, at least in the biblical world.  They come from different places and have different concerns, but they are linked by an alliance to attack the Israelites and by fate paradoxes, as well as by the alphabet (Balaam, which is spelled without a Yod, comes immediately before Balak, both in the Even-Shoshan’s famous New Concordance of the Bible as in the prestigious Mikra’it Encyclopedia of the Mosad Bialik).

The parashah is named after Balak ben Zippor, king of Moab. It is composed of 104 verses, of which the first 95 (Num. 22-24) are considered by the Talmud as a separate story under the name “Parashat Balaam” (Baba Batra 14b), where Moses is never mentioned.  How confusing!  (By the way, according to the Zohar III:199b, the first two letters of the name of both antiheroes form the word BilBul = confusion.)

As if this was not enough, none of the antiheroes is mentioned in the last 9 verses of Parashat Balak (which are the ones that are not part of Parashat Balaam), although the twosome foe seems to be hiding there, in the idolatrous degeneration of the Israelites.

Let’s take it one step at a time.  Balak is almost a mystery to us.  The Zohar (id. 196b) tells us that he was the grandchild of Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law (and the only one who did not convert to Judaism), while the Talmud places him in the line of succession of Laban, Jacob’s father-in-law (Sanhedrin 105a) and as an ancestor of Ruth (Nazir 23b).

The Torah tells us that, intimidated by the overwhelming advance of the Israelites, Balak realized that the key to bring them down lay more on the supernatural than in military force.  And to this purpose, he contacts Balaam ben Beor.

There is little information concerning the latter:  he had come from Mesopotamia and was acknowledged for his powers.  In the Talmud (Baba Batra 15b), the sages consider him one of the seven prophets sent by God to the nations, and the Midrash (Num. Rabbah 20:1)  places him at the same level as Moses.  Another passage (Sanhedrin 106a) maintains that he was the Pharaoh’s advisor who gave him the idea of throwing the newborn babies to the Nile.

Although in the biblical story he shows himself to be obedient of God’s instructions, in the rabbinical literature a negative view of Balaam prevails, to the extent that on several occasions, his name appears together with the expression Ha’Rashah, “evil doer”.

In the well-known story of our parashah, which includes the fable of Balaam’s donkey having discussions with its master (together with the serpent of Genesis 3, the only two animals that speak in the Torah), Balak asks Balaam to curse Israel and the only thing he can do is bless it, including the Ma Tovu, the famous phrase with which we begin our daily morning prayers:  “How fair are your tents, O Jacob, Your dwellings, O Israel!” (Num. 24:5).

Parashat Balaam (do not confuse with Parashat Balak) ends with the resounding fiasco of the Machiavellian plan.  “Then Balaam set out on his journey back home; and Balak also went his way” (Id. 24:25).  It would seem that the alliance between these two fearsome enemies (also according to the Zohar III:199b, the combined letters of Balak and Balaam form Babel – Babylon – and Amalek, two of Israel’s most fearful adversaries) did not achieve its purpose.  Israel’s fortitude withstood external onslaught.

Nevertheless, immediately after the Torah tells us how the children of Israel, seduced by the women of Moab, actively participated in an idolatrous ritual, unleashing the divine rage only detained by Pinhas’ violent intervention.

Just further on, the Torah itself surprises us by affirming that this was part of Balaam’s plan:  “Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor” (Id. 31:16).

If, indeed, the Baal-peor incident was due to an initiative of the twosome foe, we see that they not only achieved their purpose but did it by attacking Israel’s weakest spot.  It is interesting that, having withstood three curse attempts from Balaam, our ancestors finally succumbed to the fascination of pagan rituals.  What Balaam’s inspired word could not achieve, along with Balak’s money, was achieved by the women of Moab and, especially, by their lack of commitment to monotheism.

One of the lessons taught by this entire story is, perhaps, the necessary strength we should have to face our external threats, but what is even more important, to know that as long as our convictions are weak and not firmly grounded, we will fail, time and time again, victims of our own contradictions.

Shabbat Shalom,

Gustavo