Consider the following pasuk and Rashi in Balak:
I found the following summary of a Torah Temima in Prachei Rashi:
Torah Temimah:
After citing the Rashi, Torah Temimah writes:
I certainly agree with the distinction that Torah Temimah is making here. Given the offer by the unnamed man, Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma's response is natural in context and does not reflect any flaw in Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma's nature.
I would tentatively express some slight doubt about Bilaam's response being out of context, however. While Torah Temimah's analysis makes good sense and is quite compelling, we should subject it to scrutiny, considering it in the light of the peshat in the pasuk and in light of Rashi's sources. We shall see.
First off, consider that according to Ibn Ezra, Balak's offer was indeed one of money.
Thus, Ibn Ezra considered "surely honor you" to be ambiguous, and so takes Bilaam's response as clarifying what it was that Balak offered. Perhaps compare with the root יקר which means both heavy and expensive.
Of course, Rashi is not Ibn Ezra, so Rashi does not need to agree that Balak was offering wealth. However, consider this earlier pasuk and Rashi:
This shows that money, and not just honor, was on the table.
(Our Tanchuma does not mention money but honor here:
לקרוא לושכתב לו, שלא תהא סבור שלעצמי בלבד אתה עושה ואני מכבדך.
אם תעקרם, מכל האומות אתה מתכבד, וכנענים ומצרים כלם משתחווים לך.
Rashi often has a different version of Tanchuma than we have, so we should consider the possibility that he is basing himself on a different version of Tanchuma, rather than changing it.
)
Then, a bit later, in Balak's actual offer:
What is the thing of which Balak will give him more? This might be money. But on the other hand, given the context in both Rashi and Tanchuma of honor as a thread running through this, and given that the pasuk itself uses the word כַבֵּד, this can indeed mean more honor.
(The Tanchuma from which this is taken:
כי כבד אכבדך מאד יותר ממה שהיית נוטל לשעבר, אני נותן.
)
So I think Torah Temimah's explanation can indeed work out, with a shift from honor to money, but with the asterisk that, according to Rashi (and perhaps according to Tanchuma), Balak did indeed promise him a lot of money. And it makes good sense that Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma was responding to an immediate offer of a tremendous treasure, which then makes his idiomatic use of "all the money in the world" not reflective of his personality.
I think that there is another potential explanation, besides that of Torah Temimah. Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma was established based on other evidence as a tzaddik. Meanwhile, Bilaam was established based on other evidence as a rasha. One thing that midrash tends to do is take Biblical characters who are "grey" and paint them as either black or white. Esav is ambiguous, and we can almost see his side. Cheated out of his birthright, because he came in from the field starving. However, the midrash piles on three grievous sins that he had just committed. Yaakov lies to his father about his identity. The midrash breaks up his words so that he just says "It is I. Esav is your firstborn." This is perhaps because the words which are often grabbed for midrashic analysis is ambiguous, and so can be interpreted one way or the other. And the cue for the direction of analysis is taken from their overall sense of the person. Alternatively, there is a homiletic purpose behind such analyses.
It is not just this one trait which the Midrash Tanchuma points out. It is one of three:
ויען בלעם ויאמר אל עבדי בלק אם יתן לי בלק מלא ביתו כסף וזהב וגו' מכאן אתה למד, שהיה בו שלשה דברים, אלו הן:
עין רעה,
ורוח גבוהה,
ונפש רחבה.
[עין רעה, דכתיב: וישא בלעם את עיניו וירא את ישראל. רוח גבוהה, דכתיב: מאן ה' לתתי להלך עמכם. נפש רחבה, דכתיב: אם יתן לי בלק וגו']. אלו היה מבקש לשכור חיילות להלחם כנגדן, ספק נוצחין, ספק נופלין. לא דיו שיתן כך ונוצח. הא למדת, שכן בקש. לא אוכל לעבור.
נתנבא שאינו יכול לבטל ברכות שנתברכו האבות מפני השכינה. ועתה שבו נא בזה גם אתם הלילה.
Balaam answered and said to Balak's servants, "Even if Balak gives me a house full of silver and gold, I cannot do anything small or great that would transgress the word of the Lord, my God. | יח. וַיַּעַן בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל עַבְדֵי בָלָק אִם יִתֶּן לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת פִּי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָי לַעֲשׂוֹת קְטַנָּה אוֹ גְדוֹלָה: | |
a house full of silver and gold: This shows us that he was greedy and coveted other people’s money. He said, “He ought to give me all his silver and gold, since he has to hire many armies, and even then, it is questionable whether he will be victorious or not, whereas I will certainly succeed.”- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak; Num. Rabbah 20:10] | מלא ביתו כסף וזהב: למדנו שנפשו רחבה ומחמד ממון אחרים. אמר, ראוי לו ליתן לי כל כסף וזהב שלו, שהרי צריך לשכור חיילות רבות, ספק נוצח ספק אינו נוצח, ואני ודאי נוצח: |
I found the following summary of a Torah Temima in Prachei Rashi:
Torah Temimah:
After citing the Rashi, Torah Temimah writes:
"And there is to comment on this. For do we not find in Pirkei Avot 9:6: 'Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma said: If you were to give me all the silver and gold in the world, I would not travel to a place which was not a place of Torah..." And if so, why do we see fit to darshen this one [by Bilaam] negatively, in such language as to the disgrace of Bilaam?
However, the truth is that this case is not comparable to that one there. For there [in Avot] the story was that a certain person suggested before Rabbi Yossi that he travel to dwell in his city, and that he would give him for this a million gold dinarii, and upon this Rabbi Yossi responded the aforementioned response. And therefore, Rabbi Yossi was compelled to respond to him in similar fashion to the suggestion, that not only would he not take a million gold dinarii, but even all the silver and gold in the world. In contrast here, Balak did not suggest to Bilaam that he would enrich him with silver because of his action, but only promised him that he would honor him, as it states (pasuk 17) 'for I will surely honor you'.
And if so, Bilaam should have replied in like fashion to his suggestion, that he could not be honored in any honor if it entailed transgressing the word of Hashem. So why did he respond in matters of money? Rather, certainly because he was desirous of money. And this is as is known in nature, that a person's desire is always on his tongue to mention it.'End quote. The Mishna in Avot reads:
פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בדרך ופגע בי אדם אחד ואמר לי שלום, החזרתי לו שלום. אמר לי, רבי מאיזו עיר אתה? אמרתי לו מעיר גדולה של חכמים וסופרים אנוכי. אמר לי רבי רצונך שתדור עמנו במקומנו, ואני אתן לך אלף אלפים כסף וזהב אבנים טובות ומרגליות? אמרתי לו, אם אתה נותן לי כל כסף וזהב אבנים טובות ומרגליות שבעולם, איני דר אלא במקום תורה! שכך כתוב בספר התהילים "טוב לי תורת פיך מאלפי זהב וכסף"
I certainly agree with the distinction that Torah Temimah is making here. Given the offer by the unnamed man, Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma's response is natural in context and does not reflect any flaw in Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma's nature.
I would tentatively express some slight doubt about Bilaam's response being out of context, however. While Torah Temimah's analysis makes good sense and is quite compelling, we should subject it to scrutiny, considering it in the light of the peshat in the pasuk and in light of Rashi's sources. We shall see.
First off, consider that according to Ibn Ezra, Balak's offer was indeed one of money.
כי כבד אכבדך -בממון.
וכל אשר תאמר -שיש צורך כדי שתקללם, והעד: כי כבד אכבדך כן שאמר בלעם: אם יתן לי בלק מלא ביתו כסף וזהב:
Thus, Ibn Ezra considered "surely honor you" to be ambiguous, and so takes Bilaam's response as clarifying what it was that Balak offered. Perhaps compare with the root יקר which means both heavy and expensive.
Of course, Rashi is not Ibn Ezra, so Rashi does not need to agree that Balak was offering wealth. However, consider this earlier pasuk and Rashi:
He sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of his people, to call for him, saying, "A people has come out of Egypt, and behold, they have covered the "eye" of the land, and they are stationed opposite me. | ה. וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעוֹר פְּתוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַנָּהָר אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹ לִקְרֹא לוֹ לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם הִנֵּה כִסָּה אֶת עֵין הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא ישֵׁב מִמֻּלִי: |
to call for him: This invitation was for him, [i.e.,] for his benefit, for he promised him a large sum of money. - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7] | לקרא לו: הקריאה שלו היתה ולהנאתו, שהיה פוסק לו ממון הרבה: |
This shows that money, and not just honor, was on the table.
(Our Tanchuma does not mention money but honor here:
לקרוא לושכתב לו, שלא תהא סבור שלעצמי בלבד אתה עושה ואני מכבדך.
אם תעקרם, מכל האומות אתה מתכבד, וכנענים ומצרים כלם משתחווים לך.
Rashi often has a different version of Tanchuma than we have, so we should consider the possibility that he is basing himself on a different version of Tanchuma, rather than changing it.
)
Then, a bit later, in Balak's actual offer:
For I will honor you greatly and do whatever you tell me to do. So please come and curse this people for me.'" | יז. כִּי כַבֵּד אֲכַבֶּדְךָ מְאֹד וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵלַי אֶעֱשֶׂה וּלְכָה נָּא קָבָה לִּי אֵת הָעָם הַזֶּה: | |
For I will honor you greatly: I will give you more than you have ever received in the past. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 6, Num. Rabbah 20:10] | כי כבד אכבדך מאד: יותר ממה שהיית נוטל לשעבר אני נותן לך: |
What is the thing of which Balak will give him more? This might be money. But on the other hand, given the context in both Rashi and Tanchuma of honor as a thread running through this, and given that the pasuk itself uses the word כַבֵּד, this can indeed mean more honor.
(The Tanchuma from which this is taken:
כי כבד אכבדך מאד יותר ממה שהיית נוטל לשעבר, אני נותן.
)
So I think Torah Temimah's explanation can indeed work out, with a shift from honor to money, but with the asterisk that, according to Rashi (and perhaps according to Tanchuma), Balak did indeed promise him a lot of money. And it makes good sense that Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma was responding to an immediate offer of a tremendous treasure, which then makes his idiomatic use of "all the money in the world" not reflective of his personality.
I think that there is another potential explanation, besides that of Torah Temimah. Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma was established based on other evidence as a tzaddik. Meanwhile, Bilaam was established based on other evidence as a rasha. One thing that midrash tends to do is take Biblical characters who are "grey" and paint them as either black or white. Esav is ambiguous, and we can almost see his side. Cheated out of his birthright, because he came in from the field starving. However, the midrash piles on three grievous sins that he had just committed. Yaakov lies to his father about his identity. The midrash breaks up his words so that he just says "It is I. Esav is your firstborn." This is perhaps because the words which are often grabbed for midrashic analysis is ambiguous, and so can be interpreted one way or the other. And the cue for the direction of analysis is taken from their overall sense of the person. Alternatively, there is a homiletic purpose behind such analyses.
It is not just this one trait which the Midrash Tanchuma points out. It is one of three:
ויען בלעם ויאמר אל עבדי בלק אם יתן לי בלק מלא ביתו כסף וזהב וגו' מכאן אתה למד, שהיה בו שלשה דברים, אלו הן:
עין רעה,
ורוח גבוהה,
ונפש רחבה.
[עין רעה, דכתיב: וישא בלעם את עיניו וירא את ישראל. רוח גבוהה, דכתיב: מאן ה' לתתי להלך עמכם. נפש רחבה, דכתיב: אם יתן לי בלק וגו']. אלו היה מבקש לשכור חיילות להלחם כנגדן, ספק נוצחין, ספק נופלין. לא דיו שיתן כך ונוצח. הא למדת, שכן בקש. לא אוכל לעבור.
נתנבא שאינו יכול לבטל ברכות שנתברכו האבות מפני השכינה. ועתה שבו נא בזה גם אתם הלילה.
No comments:
Post a Comment