Parashath Balaq (Numbers XXII,2-XXV,9) 7/8/11

A.

Fresh from their victory over ‘Og, king of the Bashan and Sihon king of the Emori, east of the Jordan River, Israel approach the borders of Mo’av: וירא בלק בן צפור את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמורי: ויגר מואב מפני העם מאוד כי רב הוא ויקץ מואב מפני בני ישראל: (“And Balaq ben Tzippor saw everything which Israel had done to the Emori. And Mo’av was very frightened by the people, for it was numerous [rav]; and Mo’av was revolted by the bënei Yisra’él”; XXII, 2-3).

At first blush, Mo’av’s terror seems obviously justified; as Rashi explains Balaq’s reasoning: אלו שני המלכים שהיינו בטוחים עליהם לא עמדו בפניהם אנו על אחת כמה וכמה (“These two kings on whom we relied did not stand before them; how much more so that we will not”). Yet, a little thought reveals that it is not at all clear that Balaq and Mo’av had anything to fear at all. As Moshe would later remind Israel, on the eve of their entry into the Holy Land, G-d had commanded אתם עברים בגבול אחיכם בני עשו הישבים בשעיר כו' אל תתגרו בם כי לא אתן לכם מארצם כו' אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה כי לא אתן לך מארצו וגו' (“...You are passing on the border of your brothers, the bënei ‘Ésav [also known as Edom] who dwell in Sé‘ir.... Do not challenge them, for I shall not give you of their land... Do not storm Mo’av and do not challenge them [with] war, for I will not give you of his land....;” Deuteronomy II, 4-9), and Israel’s non-response to Edom’s aggressive refusal to allow them passage through their territory would seem to constitute primâ facie evidence of serious commitment to this commandment.

Since Israel had not invaded Edom, what had Mo’av to fear?

B.

The Holy Land had been conquered from the bënei Shém during the years immediately following the Great Dispersal of humanity from Mesopotamia. That conquest was ongoing when Avraham arrived in the country (cf. Genesis XII, 5, Rashi ad loc.); indeed, the fighting was probably the proximate cause of he famine which caused Avraham to go down to Egypt.

When the dust settled and the land’s subjugation was complete, sometime before Ya‘aqov left for Paddan Aram, seven ethnically related nations occupied the country: The Këna‘ani, the Hitti, the Hivvi, the Përizzi, the Girgashi, the Emori, and the Yëvusi (along with the ethnically unrelated Pëlishtim on the west coast). Even though the ethnic base of Sihon’s kingdom, at least, was also Emori (the ethnic composition of ‘Og’s is not clear), they were not a part of these seven nations concerning whom the Torah commanded לא תחי' כל נשמה (“You shall not allow a soul to live”; Deuteronomy XX, 16-17).

The issue was thus not ethnicity, but rather geography; Sihon’s people were not occupying the Holy Land, any more than were their Phoenician cousins in what is now Lebanon, with whom David and Shëlomo maintained good trade relations. For this reason, after ‘Og and Sihon had been defeated, the bënei Rë’uvén and bënei Gad felt the need to seek permission to settle on their territory with their cattle (Numbers XXXII, 1-4).

If it is true that they were not subject to the Divine imperative to conquer the Holy Land, because they were not resident in the Holy Land and so their ethnic identity with their cousins west of the river did not matter, why was permission given to assault and overrun their territory?

The answer can be discerned in Moshe’s subsequent account in Deuteronomy II, 24-30; just as he had done with Edom, Moshe sent emissaries to Sihon requesting safe passage through his territory to the bank of the Jordan, offering to buy whatever provisions might be needed on the way; Sihon’s response was similarly negatively aggressive, and the Emorim were not protected by any bond of kinship with Israel.

Now re-reading the first two verses, it appears evident that the Mo’avi king was only aware that when Israel’s way was blocked by the eastern Emori state, permission was granted them to destroy it; he seems not to have known what had gone before on the Edomi border. The logical conclusion which he drew was that preventing Israel’s approach to the Holy Land would bring in its wake his nation’s destruction as well. Hence, Mo’av’s great apprehension as Israel encamped on their border, and Moshe’s emissaries approached.

Which naturally leads to the question: Why stop them? One might argue that the eastern Emorim felt some kinship with the western Emorim of the sacred land who were slated for destruction, and therefore sought to bar Israel’s approach. Perhaps that was part of their motivation; Mo’av had no ethnic kinship with any of the seven Canaanite tribes occupying the Promised Land (cf. Genesis XIX, 30-37 for Mo’av’s ethnic origins, and ibid., X, 6, 15-18, for those of the Canaanites), so that would not have played a role.

Why, then, was Mo’av committed to holding Israel back?

C.

The clue is contained in the final clause of our passage: Va-yaqotz Mo’av mi-pënei bënei Yisra’él. Rashi explains the verb as meaning qatzu bë-hayyeihem, (“they loathed their lives”), and the Raveh, in one of his parenthetical elaborations on Rashi, points to Rivqa’s use of the verb in her comment on the local Canaanite girls of her day: קצתי בחיי מפני בנות חת אם לקח יעקב אשה מבנות חת כאלה מבנות הארץ למה לי חיים (“I loathe my life [qatzti bë-hayyai] because of the daughters of Héth [i.e., the Hittim]; if Ya‘aqov should take a wife of the bënoth Héth, like these of the daughters of the land, why should I have life?”; ibid., XXVII, 46). Rivqa’s opinion was based on her experience with the foul idolatry and licentious behaviour of ‘Ésav’s Hitti wives (ibid., XXVI, 34-35, Rashi ad loc.).

That the bënoth Mo’av were cut from similar moral cloth is evident from the end of our parasha, where we read: ויחל העם לזנות אל בנות מואב: ותקראן לעם לזבחי אלהיהם וגו' (“...And the simple people [ha-‘am] began to lust after the bënoth Mo’av. And they called the ‘am to the sacrifices to their gods...”; XXV, 1-2), an invitation whose effectiveness becomes clearer when Hazal add the detail that these “religious” rites were being conducted in the nude (עיי' סנהדרין ק"ו.); not for nothing does the Torah warn us ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם וגו' (“and you will not follow after your heart and your eyes after which you lust...”; Numbers XVI, 38), i.e., be careful what you look at.

The matriarch Rivqa’s disgust at seeing this sort of behavior amongst the Hittim three centuries earlier is mirrored by Mo’avi disgust at the thought that Israel would soon be ensconced next door, that the standards of Torah morality would cast an actinic light on their own activities, showing them to be what they were.

The Zohar makes this same point through a pun on the word rav in our passage; as well as numerous, it means “great”, and can be taken as a reference to rabbinical leadership. Hence, says the Zohar their disgust was driven על שום רב עלאה דאזיל בהו, “by the exalted rav moving amongst them,” Moshe, who had received the Torah and inculcated it into Israel (זוה"ק ח"ג קפ"ד:).

D.

Earlier this year, I made note of the fact that the world, in its original disposition, came into existence and endured through pure Divine hesed, “kindness” (cf. A”z Yashir, Emor, 5771). Thus, for instance, King David sings כי אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה (“For I have said, the universe is built of hesed”; Psalms LXXXIX, 3). He also composed the wholly remarkable Psalms CXXXVI, which begins: הודו לד' כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו , “Give thanks to Ha-Shem for [He is] good, because His hesed is the world’s”), continuing on for a total of twenty-six verses, each ending with the same clause, כי לעולם חסדו, “because His kindness is the world’s”.

Turning to the Book of Genesis, we begin to count: There are 10 human generations from the first man until Noah; another 10 (albeit shorter) human generations separate Noah from Avraham avinu, followed by Yitzhaq, Ya‘aqov, Lévi, Qëhath, and ‘Amram, the father of Moshe rabbénu. 26 human generations transpired from the advent of mankind, until Moshe rabbénu received the Torah and taught it to Israel; 26 generations living on Divine hesed.

The problem with living on hesed, even Divine hesed, is that the universe was designed to function in that way. One who is constantly given a hand-out comes to be demeaned, degraded, and loses all sense of his self-worth. As the Talmud puts it, דאכיל מן חברי' בהית מאסתכל בי' (“Who eats from someone else is embarrassed to look upon him”; ירושלמי ערלה פ"א ה"ג ). The hachmei ha-emeth term this condition nahama dë-chissufa, “the bread of shame.”

Rashi attests to this state of affairs in his famous remark on Genesis I, 1, שבתחלה עלה במחשבה לבראתו במדת הדין וראה שאין העולם מתקיים והקדים מדת רחמים למדת הדין וגו' (“that at first it arose in thought to create [the world] by means of the measure of judgment [din], and He saw that the world does not endure, and He placed the measure of mercy [rahamim] before the measure of din”).

Read Rashi’s words with great care: G-d placed rahamim (defined as an amalgam of hesed and din; cf. A”z Yashir, Hayyei Sara, 5771, ועיי' זוה"ק ח"א קי"ט., ניצוצי אורות שם). He did not supplant din with hesed, but alloyed the two, and placed the alloy first. Because of the din in the mixture, through all those 26 generations, the nahama dë-chissufa continued to build....

Hazal, too, tell us that this climax was planned from the start: התנה הקב"ה עם מעשה בראשית וא"ל אם ישראל מקבלים התורה מוטב ואם לאו אני אחזיר אתכם לתהו ובהו (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, made a condition with Creation, and told it, 'If Israel accept the Torah, it becomes well; and if not, I shall return you to chaos'”; עיי' שבת פ"ח. וע"ע זוה"ק ח"ג קצ"ג. וחצ"ר:). Only Israel’s acceptance of the Torah and entry into the Holy Land to implement it would discharge the nahama dë-chissufa, by enabling the adam to begin earning his keep.

The level of depravity evinced by the Torah, in Egypt and Këna‘an alike (cf. Leviticus XVIII, 3-30, Torath Kohanim ad loc.), as well as amongst the Mo’avim, Midyanim, and others at the time of the Torah’s advent in this world, can be viewed as the direct result of leading a life with no responsibility, living on hesed with no greater purpose than the pursuit of physical comfort and pleasure; it was evident to Balaq and Bil‘am that the party was about to end, and that they might begin to be held accountable for the Seven Mitzvoth incumbent on all the descendants of Noah, which they were desperately trying to forget; this is what they were intent on resisting. The resistance, thanks to the strength and resolve of Israel under their exalted rav, Moshe, proved futile.

Parshath Balaq (Numbers XXII,2-XXV,9) 6/25/10

A.

As the bënei Yisra’él round the border of Edom and near the eastern border of Mo’av, that country’s Midyani king, Balaq ben Tzippor, well aware of all that has gone before, views their approach with rising panic. He turns to the most celebrated prophet, magician, and necromancer of his day, Bil‘am ben Bë‘or of the city of Pëthor (which has been identified with the tell Deir ‘Alla in western Jordan, about 8 km east of the Jordan River and 1 km north of the Yabboq).



That Balaq understands fully the nature of Bil‘am’s capabilities is revealed by what he has his emissaries tell the great man: ועתה לכה נא ארה לי את העם הזה כו' כי ידעתי את אשר תברך מברך ואשר תאר יואר (“And now, curse for me this people...f or I know fully that whom you bless has been blessed, and whom you curse will be cursed”; XXII,6). The verb tëvaréch (‘you will bless”) is followed by a passive participle mëvorach (“has been blessed”), indicating that Bil‘am’s blessings were useless; but the verb ta’or (“you will curse”) is followed by the imperfective passive yu’ar (“he will be cursed”), suggesting that Bil‘am’s curses were truly efficacious. That was what Balaq sought.



Bil‘am, for all his character flaws, was a true prophet, who understood the source of his power. Hence, he had to ask G-d whether he would be permitted to curse Israel, and was unequivocally told לא תלך עמהם לא תאר את העם כי ברוך הוא (“You will not go with them [‘immahem], you will not curse the people for it is blessed”; ibid., 12), so Bil‘am refuses to accompany them.



In a paroxysm of fear, Balaq sends even more esteemed and illustrious ambassadors to remonstrate with the prophet. Bil‘am is persuaded to ask again, and this time is told: אם לקרא לך באו האנשים קום לך אתם ואך את הדבר אשר אדבר אליך אתו תעשה (“If the mean have come to call you, arise, go with them [ittam], but only the thing which I shall speak to you shall you do”; ibid., 20). The last phrase of our verse and the alternation in prepositions (éth vs. ‘im) both show that G-d had not changed His mind; the Ha‘améq Davar notes דלשון אתם משמעו שלא בהשתוות והתרועעות כו' והרשע לא עבר על זה בפועל ממש כו' אבל מכ"מ במחשבתו הלך בדעתם ומש"ה כתיב "וילך עם שרי מואב" ולא כתיב "את שרי מואב" וגו' (“for the term ittam means not together and in comradeship with them... and the rasha‘ did not violate this explicitly... but nonetheless in his thoughts went according to their opinion, and for this reason it is written ‘and he went with [‘im] the ministers of Mo’av’ [v. 21] and not éth sarei Mo’av....”).



Though he knew the effort was futile, Bil‘am made three attempts to curse Israel in Balaq’s behalf (recorded in XXIII, 7-12; 18-26; XXIV, 3-9). In the last of the three prophetic episodes, Bil‘am declares: מה טבו אהליך יעקב משכנותך ישראל (“How good are your tents, Ya‘aqov, your dwellings, Israel”; XXIV, 5). Those of us who regularly attend synagogues or battei midrashoth will recognize these as the words one utters as one enters the sanctuary.



There are many beautiful lines in Tanach composed by holy and pious prophets and poets which would seem to be suitable for this purpose. Consider, for instance, Ya‘aqov Avinu’s exclamation, מה נורא המקום הזה אין זה כי אם בית אלקים וזה שער שמים (“How awesome is this place; this is none other than the house of G-d, and this is the gate of Heaven”; Genesis XXVIII, 17), or King David’s שמחתי באמרים לי בית ד' נלך (“I rejoice utterly in those who say to me, Let us go to Ha-Shem’s house”; Psalms CXXII, 1). Why, then, did Hazal pick the words of a rasha‘ like Bil‘am to accompany our entry to public prayer or study?

B.

The Talmud elucidates the passage in which our verse occurs: א"ר יוחנן מברכתו של אותו רשע אתה למד מה הי' בלבו ביקש לומר שלא יהיו להם בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות "מה טובו אהליך יעקב". לא תשרה שכינה עליהם "ומשכנותיך ישראל". לא תהא מלכותן נמשכת "כנחלים נטיו". לא יהא להם זיתים וכרמים "כגנות עלי נהר". לא יהא ריחן נודף "באהלים נטע ד'". לא יהו להם מלכים בעלי קומה "כארזים עלי מים". לא יהי' להם מלך בן מלך "יזל מים מדליו". לא תהא מלכותן שולטת באומות "וזרעו במים רבים". לא תהא עזה מלכותן "וירם מאגג מלכו". לא תהא אימת מלכותן "ותנשא מלכותו". אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא כולם חזרו לקללה חוץ מבתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שנאמר "ויהפוך ד' אלקיך לך את הקללה לברכה כי אהבך ד' אלקיך" קללה ולא קללות (“Said Rabbi Yohanan, 'From that rasha‘’s blessing you learn what was in his heart. He sought to say that they should have no synagogues or battei midrashoth, ‘How good are your tents, Ya‘aqov’; theat they not be saturated with the Shëchina ['Divine Presence’], ‘and your dwellings [u-mishkënothecha, from the same root as Shëchina] Israel’; that their kingdom not endure, ‘like streams they stretch out’; that they not have olives and vineyards, ‘like gardens on the river’; that their aroma [their reputation for doing mitzvoth; Rashi ad loc.] not be wafted, ‘in tents Ha-Shem has planted’; that they not have kings of stature, ‘like cedars on [the] water’; that they not have a king son of a king, ‘water will flow from its sources’; that their kingdom not be ruling over the nations, ‘and his seed in many waters’; that their kingdom not be strong, ‘and more exalted than Agag is its king’; that their kingdom not be respected, ‘and his kingdom will be exalted’. Said Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, 'All of them returned to curse[s] save [what was said about] synagogues and battei midrashoth, as it is said, ‘And Ha-Shem your G-d overturned for you the curse into a blessing for Ha-Shem your G-d loves you’ [Deuteronomy XXIII, 6]; curse, not curses”; סנהדרין ק"ה:).



In other words, from every positive thing said by Bil‘am one can learn the negative thing he had wished to say. In the end, says Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, it is not Jewish statehood or kingship or military might which last, but only battei kënessiyoth and battei midrashoth, שלא יפסיקו מישראל לעולם, clarifies Rashi; “that they never cease from Israel forever.”

C.

The Bë’ér Moshe finds another, deep allusion in our passage relevant to our chosen theme. He first calls our attention to a midrash: וכי מה טיבן של נחלים אצל בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שאומר "כנחלים נטיו" אצל "מה טובו אהליך יעקב" אלא לומר לך מה נחלים מעלין את האדם מן הטומאה לטהרה כך בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מעלין את האדם מן הטומאה לטהרה כיצד? אלא מביאין את האדם מחובה לזכות לכך נאמר "כנחלים נטיו" (“And so what has the quality of streams to do with battei kënessiyoth and battei midrashoth, such that He says ‘they stretch like streams’ beside ‘how good are your tents, Ya‘aqov?’ But it is to tell you that just as streams elevate a person from tum’a to tahara [since he can immerse himself in them], so do battei kënessiyoth and battei midrashoth elevate a person from tum’a to tahara; how? They bring a person from conviction to acquittal”; תנא דבי אלי' רבה פכ"א).



He then turns our attention to another midrash, this one concerning Genesis I, 2: ורוח אלקים מרחפת על פני המים (“And the spirit of G-d [was] hovering on the face of the water”): זהו רוחו של מלך המשיח היאך מה דאת אמר "ונחה עליו רוח ד'" באיזה זכות משמשת ובאה? בזכות התשובה שנמשלה כמים שנאמר "שפכי כמים לבך נכח פני ד'" (“This is the spirit of the Anointed King [melech ha-mashiach], how? Just as you say, ‘And the spirit of Ha-Shem rested upon him’ [Isaiah XI, 2], in what merit does it feel its way and come? In the merit of tëshuva which is compared to water, as it is said, ‘Pour out your heart like water before Ha-Shem’ [Lamentations II, 19]”בראשית רבה פ"ב סי' ה' עיי"ש שהגירסא קצת שונה מגירסת הרבי ז"ל ). This is juxtaposed to yet another ma’amar Hazal: אין מים אלא תורה (“Water is none other than Torah”; בבא קמא י"ז.). Both are the same, says the Rebbe, for it is the Torah studied in the battei kënessiyoth and battei midrashoth which leads one to do tëshuva.



וכעת נבא להבין את מאמרם הנ"ל מה נחלים מעלים את האדם מן הטומאה לטהרה כך בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות וכו' מביאין את האדם מחובה לזכות, שבאמצעות התורה הנלמדת בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות מתעורר האדם לתשובה וממילא מביאין אותו מחובה לזכות בכחה של תשובה (“And now we come to understand their ma’amar above, ‘just as streams elevate a person from tum’a to tahara, so do battei kënessiyoth and battei midrashoth... bring a person from conviction to acquittal, for by means of the Torah which is learnt in the battei kënessiyoth and battei midrashoth a person is awakened to tëshuva and automatically they bring him from conviction to acquittal through the power of tëshuva”).

D.

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana’s reading of Moshe’s recapitulation of the Bil‘am story in Deuteronomy, that only one of the involuntary blessings born of his earnest desire to curse Israel remained a blessing, sounds a bit bleak, but in light of the Rebbe’s comment above, it can be seen as much less so, If we now go back and re-read the passage in question, we see that virtually every prediction made by Bil‘am involves streams, or rivers, or water. These things constitute an inescapable theme, and lead us to a shattering conclusion: That the permanence of Jewish statehood, and kingship, and military might are, in fact, dependent upon the battei kënessiyoth and the battei midrashoth, and the Torah which is learnt in them. Maintaining and attending battei kënessiyoth and battei midrashoth, davening and learning in them, are the secret to keeping Israel strong and respected in the world, and the way to control anti-Semitism.


This secret weapon of këlal Yisra’él finds mention repeatedly in Torah sources. For example, in Genesis XLVIII, 22 Ya‘aqov refers to שכם כו' אשר לקחתי מיד האמרי בחרבי ובקשתי (“Shëchem... which I took from the Emori with my sword and my bow”), which the Talmud compares to King David’s pronouncement; כי לא ב'שתי אבטח וחרבי לא תושיעני (“for it is not in my bow that I trust, and my sword will not save me”; Psalms XLIV, 7) and determines that Ya‘aqov is referring to prayer and supplication (בבא בתרא קכ"ג. וע"ע תרגום אונקלוס ורש"י עה"פ, רש"י דורש בחכמתי היינו תורתי ותפלתי), or again, commenting on Genesis XXVII,22, we learn: אין לך תפלה שמועילה שאין בה מזרעו של יעקב כו' אין לך מלחמה שנוצחת שאין בה מזרעו של עשו (“You have no successful prayer which does not have something of Ya ‘aqov’s progeny in it... You have no successful war which does not have something of ‘Esav’s progeny in it”; גיטין נ"ז:).


Why did Hazal choose the words of Bil‘am ha-rasha‘ to grace out entrance to engage in prayer or study? Because from his day to ours, the goal of Israel’s enemies has been to do away with the battei kënessiyoth and battei midrashoth. The Nazis, ימש"ו, collected vast numbers of tashmishei qëdusha, sifrei Torah and their accoutrements, cups for qiddush, mënoroth, bësamim boxes, and the like, to be displayed in museums after the war, a monument to the vanished Jewish culture.

If we want revenge on the Nazis, if we want to strengthen Israel, whether by that we mean the part of our nation resident in the Holy Land or those of us resident in the Exile, frequent the battei kënessiyoth and battei midrashoth, and contribute to the aggregate amount of Torah learnt in them.

Parshath Balaq (Numbers XXII,2-XXV,9) 7/11/08

A.

Eagerly rushing off to carry out the request of Balaq ben Tzippor, King of Mo’av, that he curse the Israelite hordes then massing on Mo’av’s border, Bil‘am ben Be‘or is confronted by an apparition: ויעמד מלאך ד' במשעול הכרמים גדר מזה וגדר מזה: ותרא האתון את מלאך ד' ותלחץ אל הקיר ותלחץ את רגל בלעם אל הקיר ויסף להכתה: ויוסף מלאך ד' עבור ויעמד במקום צר אשר אין דרך לנטות ימין ושמאול: ותרא האתון את מלאך ד' ותרבץ כו' ותאמר לבלעם מה עשיתי לך כי הכיתני זה שלש רגלים (“And Ha-Shem’s angel stood in the corridor of the vineyards, a fence on either side. And the athon [‘she-donkey’] saw Ha-Shem’s angel and shied toward the wall, and she pressed Bil‘am’s leg against the wall, and he proceeded to beat her. And Ha-Shem’s angel continued to move and stood at a narrow place where there was no way to turn right or left. And the athon saw Ha-Shem’s angel and lay down... And she said to Bil‘am, 'What did I do to you that you have beaten me three times [regalim];'” XXII, 24-28).

Drawn by the unusual usage of regalim (where we would ordinarily have expected pe‘a-mim), Rashi quotes the Midrash Tanchuma to tell us that the athon was sending a message to Bil‘am: אתה מבקש לעקור אומה החוגגת שלש רגלים בשנה (“You are seeking to uproot a nation which celebrates three regalim in the year”), i.e. Israel, which celebrates the three pilgrimmage holidays of Pesach, Shavu‘oth, and Sukkoth.

It seems reasonable to ask how the allusion to these holidays at this juncture could possibly convey some sort of admonition to Bil‘am.

B.

The séfer Toldoth Adam brings an anonymous midrash to tell us how it was that Bil-‘am, confidence man and supreme realist, could imagine, in the face of the firm Divine “no” which he had received earlier, to imagine that he would be able to accomplish his goal of cursing Israel. It seems that he offered G-d a deal: If He would consent to Israel’s destruction, the he, Bil‘am, would undertake to observe the Torah in their stead.

If we consider for a moment what Israel’s conduct had been like in the desert over the last 40 years, from the Golden Calf to the incident of Mei M’riva, we can imagine that the offer may have seemed tempting. In any event, it had to be evaluated and explored. What sort of test might G-d have devised for Bil‘am?

The Talmud offers us a template, as it were, for such an examination: There will come a judgment day, we are assured, in which each of the nations will pass before the Divine throne and have to account for its treatment of Israel, and have its conduct compared to that of Israel, at least a remnant of whom will have been faithful to the Torah throughout the long and painful exile. The nations will protest that they had not been offered the Torah under the same conditions as Israel, and for that reason had not taken it seriously: תנה לנו מראש ונעשנה (“Give it to us from the start, and we shall carry it out!”).

G-d will respond to them: מצוה קלה יש בידי וסוכה שמה לכו ועשו אותה כו' מיד כל אחד ואחד נוטל והולך ועושה סוכה בראש גגו והקדוש ברוך הוא מקדיר עליהם חמה בתקופת תמוז וכל אחד ואחד מבעט בסוכתו ויוצא (“I have a simple mitzva in My hand and its name is sukka; go and observe it.... Immediately each and every one takes and goes and makes a sukka atop his roof, and the Holy One, Blessed is He causes the heat of the height of summer to beat down upon them, and each one kicks his sukka down and leaves;” עבודה זרה ג.; cf. Zechariah XIV, 16-18, that the nations will indeed be obligated to observe Sukkoth).

The mitzva of sukka, of building and dwelling in an insubstantial, thatched hut, would seem to be the test template. The sfarim ha-qdoshim (עיי' מהר"ל מפראג חידושי אגדות שם, וע"ע בני יששכר מאמרי תשרי מאמר י' סי' ז') tell us that Israel possess an אור המקיף, an “enveloping light” or “aura”, in that they surround themselves with חומרות וסייגים, “stringencies and ‘fences’” around the Torah, i.e. protective decrees designed to prevent inadvertent violation of Torah principles (עיי' למשל ברכות ב.), symbolised by the walls and roof of the sukka.

C.

With this in mind, our attention is drawn to the beginning of our parasha, where we read: וירא בלק בן צפור את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמורי (“And Balaq ben Tzippor saw everything that Israel had done to the Emori”). The midrash tells us concerning the conflict with Sichon, King of the Emori (concerning which we read in lasr week’s parasha) that Israel י"א מלחמות סיחון עשו באלול ועשו את הרגל בתשרי ואחר הרגל מלחמת עוג (“conducted 11 campaigns against Sichon during Elul, then celebrated the regel [i.e. Sukkoth] in Tishrei, and after the regel [engaged in] the war with ‘Og;” במדבר רבה פי"ט סי' י"ח).

The principle of אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, that the events reported in the Torah are not necessarily strictly in chronological order (פסחים ו:, בין השאר), seems to apply here. Since Israel were moving from south to north along the eastern border of Eretz Yisra’él, it srands to reason that they first conquered Sichon, then approached Mo’av. They must have been congregating on the border of Mo’av, during the first two weeks of Tishrei. This would have been when Balaq sent his two desperate embassies to Bil‘am. Hence, Bil‘am would have been rushing to do Balaq’s bidding on or about the holiday of Sukkoth (the regel mentioned in the midrash), which begins on 15 Tishrei.

Now let us consider the nature of this משעול הכרמחם, this “corridor of vineyards.”

We begin by noting that Torah sources repeatedly mention the practice of training vines to grow over the top of a lattice-work structure (עיי' למשל כלאים פ"ו מ"ג, פיהרע"ב ותוספות חכמים שם). This, inevitably, serves to form a shaded corridor as the vinces mature, and undoubtedly is the reality lying behind the Biblical phrase איש תחת גפנו, “[each] man under his vine” (cf., e.g., I Kings V, 5; Micha IV, 4).

Now, from our passage, it is apparent that when the athon first perceived the angel, the corridor was wide enough to permit passage; the athon shied away from the frightening apparition over against one wall of the corridor, and tried to slink past it. The angel responded by moving to a narrow spot in the corridor, blocking the athon’s way. One envisions an “L” in one of the walls of the corridor, blocking one of the lanes, and narrowing it.

The corridor at this point meets the minimum halachic requirement of a sukka, two walls and a partial (סוכה ו: ולהלכה עיי' רמב"ם הל' סוכה פ"ד ה"ב ושו"ע או"ח סי' תר"ל סע' ב'). As for the schach, the “thatch” of the roof, the Talmud discusses just such a case of someone who has trained vines to grow over a lattice, and concludes that if he cuts the vines off from the ground and handles or shakes them a bit, they are kosher schach (סוכה י"א:).

D.

Now, we have seen that Bil‘am intended to offer himself in Israel’s stead as the upholder of Torah in this world, much as the Talmud suggests the nations will offer, on the judgment day. So, the season being Sukkoth, G-d offered Bil‘am the sukka test; the angel blocked the narrowest part of the corridor, and the athon lay down before it, as if to make Bil‘am pause and notice that he was in a potential sukka. All that was necessary was for him to cut the vines and handle them, and it would have become kosher.

Bil‘am ignored the opportunity offered him; as it were, he “kicked down” his sukka, impatiently beating the athon to get up and depart (remember that he did not yet perceive the angel before him). This is what prompted the donkey’s allusion: You want to uproot a people who seek out opportunities to observe these occasions? You find youself in the “enveloping light” of the sukka, and you are impatient to get out of it? You are not a fit replacement for Israel!

Which, of course, means that we have to live up to our reputation.