Parshas Pinchas

"Sin Crouches at the Door"

Since Bilam, the main villain of last week’s parshah, was killed, according to the Midrash, by Pinchas, the lead character in this week’s parshah, I feel justified in continuing to discuss that gifted, but thoroughly evil, nemesis of our People. This is especially so, since the name of this essay is "A Second Opinion."

Rashi comments on the words "gader mizeh v’gader mizeh," the description of the barrier by which Bilam was injured by his donkey, when it veered for the second time from his path to destruction, "ustam geder avanim hu," "the regular meaning of ‘geder’ is one made of stones." The Midrash also identifies Bilam with Lavan, the "rasha" who was Yaakov’s father-in-law, but who also wanted to uproot our People entirely. This could be understood as a "gilgul," a "transmigration of souls," or that Bilam and Lavan had identical personality types. The Shelah HaKadosh points out that the stone barriers were in fact the "gal-ed," the "stone-mound" which bore witness to the oath that Yaakov and Lavan had sworn that neither would cross to harm the other, and harm was, to say the least, the intention of Bilam, towards the People of Israel. It was therefore by the principle of "yad ha-edim tihiye bam ba-rishona l’hakosam," "the hands of the witnesses should be the first to punish them," that the stones injured Bilam first.

I'd like to extend the above idea, that Bilam should have considered carefully what his donkey was telling him even before G-d opened its mouth, turned around in the path (where there was room) and headed straight home.

The first time the donkey deviated from its path, it went into the field, into the "sadeh." On the positive side, we find the term "ba-sadeh" associated with Yitzchak Avinu , who went out "lasuach ba-sadeh," "to meditate (or pray) in the field…(Ber. 24,63)." Bilam should have realized that he was contending not only with the Jewish People whom he saw, but also with their Avos: with Avraham, who had preceded him in rising up early to saddle his donkey on his way to the Akeidah (Ber. 22, 3), with Yaakov, with whom Lavan had made the oath (Ber. 31, 52), but also with Yitzchak, who is associated with "gevurah," "might," and with the "pachad Yitzchak," the "awesome G-d of Yitzchak."

The first instance in the Torah of the term "ba-sadeh," "in the field," is in specifying the location of the first murder, "And it was when they (Kayin and Hevel) were ‘in the field.’ (Ber. 4,8)" And Bilam should have realized that Kayin’s defense of "Am I my brother’s keeper? (Ber. 4,9)" was invalidated by the Ribbono shel Olam. Another time this term is used is in connection with the crime of rape "And if ‘in the field’ (ba-sadeh) the man finds the girl…(Dev. 22,25)," then the girl is innocent and the man is guilty. Perhaps even Bilam did not want to be thought of as a murderer and a rapist.

The third time the donkey saw the angel of the L-rd, we read "And it crouched (vayirbatz) under Bilam (Bam. 22, 27)." We find that G-d warns Kayin, "If you do well (perhaps in listening to your conscience, for even Kayin and certainly Bilam must have realized that they were doing something "wrong" - or else, where is freedom of choice?) shall you not be accepted? And if you don’t do well, sin crouches (rovetz) at the door! (Ber. 4,7)"

Finally, Bilam, who must have been knowledgeable, on the basis of "know your enemy" of the Torah’s laws, should have considered what the Torah requires of a Jew who sees "the donkey of an enemy crouching (rovetz) under its load (Shemos 23,5)," unable to bear it. We are commanded to help - "azov taazov imo," not to hurt, but help, although "azov ta’azov" is an unusual expression for helping – its usual meaning is to leave; perhaps it means that we should try to leave, or abandon, our feelings of enmity.

With his reputation as National Security Advisor on the line (his support of the idea of throwing Jewish baby boys into the Nile had proved disastrous), and his vicious hatred not satisfied, Bilam, who should have considered the lessons of his donkey, not to mention G-d and His Angel, proved himself more stubborn than a mule, and incapable of accepting good advice from the Highest to the lowest authority.

In the end, his implacable hatred, arising from jealousy and sibling rivalry on a global scale – with the sibling, Israel and the parent, G-d – could not be thwarted completely; "In the direction in which one wishes to go, he is free to do so." So Bilam proceeded to his personal destruction, taking, by malicious advice if not by his superior spiritual faculties, many thousands of Jewish lives with him.

Rabbi Pinchas Frankel

Rabbi Frankel is an Educational Coordinator at the OU