Weekly Torah portion: Balak
In the Talmud tractate Bava Batra, we find a discussion of the authorship of the books of the Bible: “Who wrote the Scriptures? Moses wrote his own book and the portion of Balaam and Job. Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and (the last) eight verses of the Torah. Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the Book of Judges and Ruth…” (Bava Batra 14b). The reference to the last eight verses of the Torah addresses the question of who wrote the account of Moses’ death and burial. But why are we told that Moses wrote the portion of Balaam? Why would we imagine otherwise? Who if not Moses?
Among those last eight verses that Moses did not write, we read: “Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (Deuteronomy 34:10). The midrash comments:
“Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses.” In Israel none did, but among the nations of the world one did. Who was it? Balaam the son of Beor. But there is a difference between the prophesy of Moses and the prophesy of Balaam. Moses did not know who was speaking with him, but Balaam knew, as it says: “Word of him who hears God's speech” (Numbers 24:16). Moses did not know when He would speak with him until He spoke, but Balaam knew, as it says: “Who obtains knowledge from the Most High” (24:16). Moses spoke with Him only when he was standing, as it says: “But you stand here with Me” (Deut. 5:27), and Balaam spoke with Him when he was prostrate, as it says: “Who beholds visions from the Almighty, prostrate” (Numbers 24:4). (Sifrei Deuteronomy 357)
Thus, we might, perhaps, think that Balaam himself wrote the portion of Balaam, since he was a prophet comparable to Moses. Nahmanides (Spain – Eretz Israel, 1194 – 1270) comments upon this comparison:
Moses did not know who was speaking with him. He did not know regarding what matter or commandment he would be commanded, but rather he was always prepared for the word, and God would command him as He desired, whereas Balaam would set his mind to the matter that he wished, and seclude himself and prepare his mind to receive the spirit, in the hope that God would call upon him, as explained here, knowing that if He chose to speak of that matter of which he thought, He would speak of with him about it and no other matter. And Moses did not know when He would speak with him, because he did not have a fixed time for communicating, but rather whenever Moses wished and would desire instuction, God would speak, as it says: “Stand by, and let me hear what instructions the Lord gives” (Numbers 9:8). And so, whenever he desired be instructed from the Tent of Meeting, he would hear His voice speaking to him, whereas Balaam would prepare a time to receive the word, and it would come to him only at that time.
In his commentary to the Torah, Don Isaac Abravanel (Spain –Italy, 1437 – 1508) lists sixteen questions that arise from the Balak narrative. Like Nahmanides, he, too, considers the significance of the comparison made by the midrash, but he understands it differently:
More difficult is their statement “But there is a difference between the prophesy of Moses and the prophesy of Balaam. Moses did not know who was speaking with him, but Balaam knew… Moses did not know when He would speak with him until He spoke, but Balaam knew… Moses spoke with Him only when he was standing… and Balaam spoke with Him when he was prostrate…” and according to the first two differences mentioned, not only would it appear that Balaam was equal to Moses our teacher, but he was even greater than him in prophesy…” (Commentary of Abravanel on Deut. 33)
1. Why does the midrash wish to tell us that prophesy is not exclusive to Israel? What can we learn from the fact that the midrash chooses to convey this idea by means of a commentary on the verse “Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses”?
2. Nahmanides explains how the midrash shows that Moses was greater than Balaam in every way. As opposed to this, according to Abravanel, the midrash appears to show that Balaam was greater than Moses. Which approach better reflects the message that the midrash seeks to convey?
3. Ritba (R. Yom Tov b. Abraham Ishbili, Spain, 1250 – 1330) wrote: “It would appear that the statement of the amoraim (in the Talmud) does not refer to the portion of Balaam that appears in the Torah, which - like the rest of the Torah - was written by God, but to an independent, longer account that he wrote, and which they possessed” (Novellae Ritba on Bava Batra). Is it reasonable to assume that the Talmud refers to a lost book that Moses wrote about Balaam? Why did Ritba prefer this explanation of the Talmudic statement?
4. At the beginning of the parasha, we read: “Come then, put a curse upon this people for me, since they are too numerous for me; perhaps I can thus defeat them and drive them out of the land. For I know that he whom you bless is blessed indeed, and he whom you curse is cursed.” If “he whom you bless is blessed indeed,” why did Balak ask Balaam to curse Israel when he could have achieved his objective by asking Balak to bless his own people?
Iyunei Shabbat is published weekly by the Schechter Rabbinical Seminary, The Masorti Movement and The Rabbinical Assembly of Israel in conjunction with the Masorti Movement in Israel and Masorti Olami-World Council of Conservative Synagogues.
Chief Editor: Rabbi Avinoam Sharon
