Jewish Bible Commentaries Interpreting Balak In the following texts we will be examining a representative sampling of classic Jewish biblical exegetes. The scriptural passages that they are interpreting come from Numbers Chapter 22. The story takes place as the Israelites, coming to the end of their forty-year sojourn in the Sinai desert, are about to finally enter and conquer the promised land. The Israelites’ initial successes against neighboring nations impel Balak king of Moab to invoke supernatural assistance against them by hiring the Midianite prophet Balaam to curse the Israelites. Toward that end Balak sends a delegation of Moabite and Midianite elders to Balaam in order to persuade him to accept the task. Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac [Rashi] Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes, France (1041-1105) was the most popular Jewish interpreter of the Bible, and his commentaries are included with most Jewish printed editions of the Hebrew Bible. His commentary to the Torah combines extensive quotations from the talmudic and midrashic sources with his own original observations. Rashi to Numbers 22:6 “With divinations in their hand” All sorts of divinations, so that he could not claim “I do not have the instruments of my craft with me.” The elders of Midian brought this divination with them. COMMENTS Rashi is responding here to a twofold difficulty in the biblical text. First of all, the Hebrew word (qesamim) translated here as “divinations” is an unusual one that lends itself to diverse interpretations, as is evident from the various commentaries and translations. Furthermore, if we give it the most likely interpretation, as “paraphernalia for performing divination,” then it is odd that the elders should bring them to Balaam; why could they not simply assume that Balaam, who was a professional diviner, had his own supply of equipment? Rashi to Numbers 22:6 (continued) They said: If he will accompany us this time, that means that there is substance to him; but if he refuses us, then there is no advantage to be gained from him. For this reason when he told them “lodge here tonight,” they said: we can expect nothing from him; so they left him and made their departure, as it says “So the princes of Moab stayed with Balaam” which indicates that the princes of Midian made their departure. COMMENTS Rashi is relating to the problem of the apparent disappearance of the Midianite princes. Rashi to Numbers 22:20 “If the men come to call you” If the call is yours and you are the one who expects to reap a reward for it, then “rise and go with them”; “but” in spite of yourself, “only the word which I speak to you—that you shall do.” But nevertheless, “Balaam went.” He said: perhaps I will succeed in persuade him. Rashi to Numbers 22:22 “Because he went” He saw that the thing was evil in the sight of the Omnipresent, and yet he still desired to go. COMMENTS Rashi (following in the footsteps of several midrashic and talmudic interpretations) explains the specific contradiction between verses 20 and 22 by paraphrasing the texts so that God is not commanding, requesting or recommending that Balaam consent to accept Balak’s mission. Quite the contrary—God is saying that he would prefer that Balaam turn down Balak’s offer, however he will not compel him to refuse. He recognizes that Balaam is driven by an overwhelming desire to go to Balak, whether because of his greed for the immense wealth that the king has promised to bestow upon him or out of his personal loathing for the Israelites and the values they represent. God therefore concedes with reluctance that if Balaam insists on going, he will not prevent him, provided that Balaam agrees to say what God tells him—and not what Balak is hiring him to say. -2- For this reason, according to Rashi, God will still be justified in being angry at Balaam for making the wrong moral choice. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra Rabbi Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra (c. 1089 - c. 1164) was born and educated in the "Golden Age" of Muslim Spain. He excelled as a poet, philosopher,and grammarian, as well as biblical exegete. The latter part of his life was spent wandering in poverty through western Europe and the Middle East. Ibn Ezra‘s works of biblical interpretation focus on grammar lexicography, a sensitivity to the stylistic conventions of the Hebrew language, and a general concern for plausible and rational judgments. In adopting this approach, he frequently found himself in disagreement with the talmudic understanding that assumed that the word of God could not be subjected to human aesthetic standards. Ibn Ezra’s critical sense led him to raise questions concerning the traditional claims about the authorship to biblical books, anticipating some of the conclusions of modern scholarship. In spite of his commitment to the plain meaning of the biblical text (peshaṭ), Ibn Ezra used his commentaries to defend the rabbinic oral tradition against its detractors from the Karaite movement (the Jewish ideology that insisted on exclusive reliance on the Bible without the rabbinic “oral tradition”). He often cited Saadiah Gaon who had composed his own Arabic Bible translations and commentaries and had fought a fierce polemical campaign against Karaism. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra to Numbers 22:191 The Gaon (of blessed memory) said as follows: If someone should object that, once God had said (verse 12) “You shall not go with them,” how can he then say (verse 20) “rise and go with them’? —It is possible to reply: The Lord did not want him to accompany the first delegation, until they were accompanied by distinguished princes. COMMENTS This passage again focuses on the discrepancy between God’s responses to Balaam’s two requests to agree to Balak’s invitation. The first time he forbids it absolutely, whereas the second time he permits it. 1 Translated from: Weiser, Asher, ed. Perushe Ha-Torah Le-Rabbenu Avraham Ibn Ezra. Vol. 1. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1976 [Hebrew]. -3- Before presenting his own solution, Ibn Ezra quotes one in the name of an unnamed “Gaon” (head of the Babylonian talmudic academy). It is not clear who this Gaon is; Saadiah and Samuel ben Hofni composed important commentaries to the Torah, though this section of the book of Numbers is not included in the surviving remains of either commentary. The Gaon’s solution is based on an otherwise incidental difference between the two delegations that Balak sent to recruit Balaam. The first consisted of “the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian” (verse 7), whereas the second (verses 14-15) included “the princes of Moab.” Evidently the Gaon is saying that the reason why God did not consent to Balaam’s going with the first group was because they were beneath his dignity—or at least: beneath the dignity of God in whose name Balaam would be going and whose people he would be addressing. This interpretation is hinted at by the fact that God responds to Balaam’s first request by asking him “Who are these men with you?” (verse 9). Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra to Numbers 22:19 (continued) However in my own view, this interpretation is unnecessary. Rather, the meaning is as in (Numbers 13:2) where it states “Send ye men [to spy out the land of Canaan].” For the Lord had said (Deuteronomy 1:21) “go up and possess it”; however, they did not place their faith in him, but instead they said (verse 22) “Let us send men before us,” and it was at this point that Moses consulted with the Lord who told him “Send ye men.” In a similar vein, after the Lord had told Balaam “you shall not curse the people,” why did he need to say “that I may know what more the Lord will say to me”? It was just that he was thinking evil thoughts in his heart. Therefore the Lord directed him to go with the men, but to take heed that he only speak That “which I speak to you.” And the confirmation my interpretation is correct is when it says “Then God’s anger was aroused because he went.” COMMENTS Ibn Ezra’s own explanation, though it focuses on a different textual discrepancy, is similar in its main assumptions to that of Rashi outlined above. Like Rashi, he argues that—contrary to the assumption underlying the objection—verse 20 should not be understood as a divine injunction to Balaam to accept Balak’s invitation, but merely as a reluctant concession to Balaam’s unshakable determination to do so. Ibn Ezra strengthens his case by reading verse 20 within the broader narrative and psychological contexts of the chapter. Once God made it clear that he was opposed to the mission, there was no purpose served by again consulting God on the same question. Clearly, Ibn Ezra concludes, the fact that Balaam still hoped nonetheless that God would give his consent reveals his true malevolent desires. Viewed in this way, God’s answer was not a command to go, but a recognition that—since Balaam was determined, come what may, to go to Balak—he should be careful about what he would say. In support of his interpretation, Ibn Ezra compares this passage to another episode in the Torah in which God becomes fiercely angry at people who appear to be obeying his instructions. The reference -4- is to the account of the spies who were sent by Moses to scout out the land of Israel, as described in Numbers 13 and Deuteronomy 1.