English translation — בלק א

Sicha 1<pg>85</pg>

1.

"And he sent

(Balak)

messengers to Balaam etc. Behold, a people came out of Egypt; behold, it covers the eye of the land, and it is dwelling opposite me.

And now, please come, curse this people for me, for it is too strong for me; perhaps I will be able to strike it and drive it from the land, for I know that whomever you bless is blessed, and whomever you curse is cursed."<sup>1</sup>

And afterwards,

in Balaam's words to the Holy One, blessed be He,

it is stated<sup>2</sup>

: "And Balaam said to God: Balak etc. sent to me,

Behold, the people coming out of Egypt, and it covers the eye of the land; now, please come, curse it for me; perhaps I will be able to fight against it and drive it out."

And already stood in Or HaChaim HaKadosh<sup>3</sup>

on the differences between the expressions of the verse in the words of Balak and the words of Balaam in the name of Balak — that "Balak said, 'Behold a people went out' and he said, 'Behold the people going out,'

and Balak said, 'Behold it covers' and he said, 'and it covered,'

Balak said, 'And now' and he said, 'Now'; Balak said, 'Curse' and he said, 'Revile'; Balak said, 'We will strike him' and he said, 'To fight with him'..

also he changed and said, 'And I will drive him out' and Balak said, 'from the land.'"

And seemingly one must add another difference<sup>4</sup>

— Balak said, "And he sits opposite me,"

and Balaam omitted this matter,

which seemingly is the main point

(and as Rashi on the verse "They are close to destroy me").

And now seemingly one could say,

that according to the simple meaning there is no difficulty,

for such is the way of the verses to abbreviate etc.

But we find in Rashi on the Torah that he stands on two of these differences — "Revile for me,

this is harder than 'Curse for me' because he specifies and explains.

And I will drive him out,

from the world, and Balak did not say but 'And I will drive him out from the land'; I seek only to remove them from me, and Balaam hated them more than Balak."

Behold that Rashi holds that the differences in the verse are not because of abbreviation and the like<sup>5</sup>.

And based on this one must examine why Rashi did not stand on the rest of the differences between them,

such as:

(a)

"Went out..

Covers" or "Going out..

And it covered",

(b)

"Strike" or "To fight",

(c)

the omission of "And he sits opposite me".

2.

And behold, in Or HaChaim,

and also in Kli Yakar<sup>6</sup>,

they explained the above changes based on the principle that Balaam

(in his words to the Holy One, blessed be He)

intended to minimize the significance of the hatred in Balak's words,

and it can be explained according to the simple meaning,

so that his request would be accepted by the Holy One, blessed be He,

since he knew that Israel are beloved to the Omnipresent.

And they explained that "curse" is harsher than "denounce",

and likewise "smite him" is harsher than "fight against him",

for "to fight" can be only to drive him away from himself, but "smite him" means an actual striking,

and likewise "and I will drive him out" simply means from this place,

but "and I will drive him out from the land" means from the entire world<sup>7</sup>

(or from all of the Land of Israel<sup>8</sup>)

— and in this way they explained all the other changes in Balaam's words,

that he came to minimize the hatred etc. in Balak's words.

See there.

<pg>86</pg>

But Rashi explained the opposite,

that Balaam changed from Balak's words because "he hated them more than Balak".

And if so, it must be said,

that according to Rashi's approach,

the reason for the changes is founded on the fact that "Balaam hated them more than Balak".

And what Rashi explained explicitly only the two changes mentioned above —

(a)

I will curse or I will curse

(b)

And I will drive him out of the land or And I will drive him out — that is because in them the matter is not so clear,

For it is not clear that "I will curse" is more severe than "I will curse"<sup>9</sup>,

And likewise there is room to explain that "And I will drive him out of the land" is more severe than "And I will drive him out" simply

(And as the aforementioned commentators explained),

Therefore Rashi was compelled to explain the subject of these two changes.

But the rest of the changes are understood by themselves on the basis of the above.

And now regarding the change between "to fight" or "I will strike",

One can say simply,

That after Rashi explained that the intention in "And I will drive him out"

(Simply)

Is "from the world",

It is understood of itself that "to fight" means with the intention to destroy them from the world,

But "I will strike him" is only a matter of "striking" which is not necessarily a matter of killing and destruction,

And on the contrary,

The simple meaning of the language of striking is that the one struck remains alive.

And all the more so according to the second explanation in Rashi on "I will strike",

That it is like "he deducts for him from the money to subtract a little from them",

Which is only a small subtraction.

And it requires further examination regarding the rest of the changes.

Also, it requires examination: what compelled Rashi

(in learning according to the plain meaning)

to explain the reason for the changes that "Bilam hated them more than Balak",

and did not explain like the aforementioned commentators<sup>10</sup>.

And especially since Rashi's explanation is difficult, at first glance,

as the Kli Yakar<sup>6</sup> asked

: a)

How did it enter Bilam's mind that the Holy One, blessed be He, would give him permission to curse, heaven forbid, the children of Israel even more than Balak intended?

b)

How can it be said that "kabah" is more severe than "arah",

and behold, after Bilam answered Balak's messengers "The Lord has refused to give me leave to go with you"<sup>11</sup>

(and the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded him "You shall not curse the people"<sup>12</sup>),

Balak again sent to Bilam and requested of him "And now, please come, curse for me this people"<sup>13</sup>,

and how is it possible that after the smaller request was denied to him

("Please come, curse for me, etc.")

he would request from him a greater thing<sup>14</sup>,

"Please come, curse for me"

(and as we find that the commentators on Rashi discuss in resolving these questions).

3.

And it can be said,

that Rashi's necessity for this interpretation of his is not from the words "Kabeh" and "V'gerashtiv" themselves

(for the words themselves can be interpreted also according to the interpretation of the aforementioned commentators),

but rather his intention is to resolve the question that arises in the overall content of the portion:

What was Balak's fear of the children of Is-<pg>87</pg>

Balak,

behold Israel was commanded¹⁵

"Do not distress Moab" and as Balak saw himself,

that Bnei Yisrael "surrounded the land of Moab etc. until they came to the other side"¹⁶,

"and they did not come to the border of Moab"¹⁶,

and when they were not given permission to pass through their land they did not make war with them¹⁶,

and if so what is his fear?

And although later in Parshat Matot¹⁷

Rashi explains that the fear of the Moabites was "that they would plunder them, for it was not said except 'do not provoke them to war'" — behold this difficulty arises immediately in our parshah,

and if Rashi holds that only this was the fear of the people of Moab

(and not that they feared they would fight with them,

according to the simple meaning of the verses,

and according to Rashi on "and he is sitting opposite me" — "they are close to destroy me")

— it would have been fitting for Rashi to explain thus here¹⁸,

and not to rely on his explanation later in Parshat Matot¹⁹.

[And in the Midrash here²⁰

it is stated,

"that they were afraid because they saw all the land in the hand of Israel, that Sichon came and took the land of Moab²¹

etc. Israel came and took it etc. And these saw their land in the hand of Israel and they said, 'Did not the Holy One, blessed be He, say, "For I will not give you of his land an inheritance"?²²

And behold, our land is before them; therefore they were afraid."

("And they²³

did not know that Israel envied them because it was purified through Sichon"²⁴).

But it is difficult to explain thus according to the plain meaning,

since they saw that Bnei Yisrael surrounded their land and did not go against them in war to conquer their land,

as above].

&lt;pg&gt;88&lt;/pg&gt;

And now regarding Moab

(and Balak)

one can say simply²⁵,

that they did not know about the command of "Do not distress Moab"²⁶,

and thought that this that Bnei Yisrael are not fighting with them is because they were confident on Sichon and Og to guard them²⁷,

and as Rashi explains above²⁸

that the nations were paying them tribute to guard them,

and therefore Israel did not fight against Moab because this would arouse war against Sichon and Og.

And therefore,

after he saw that Israel defeated Sichon and Og,

"And Moab was very afraid²⁹

of the people, because they were many"³⁰.

But it is still puzzling regarding Balaam: since Balaam was a prophet,

surely he knew that this that Bnei Yisrael did not fight with Moab was because Israel was commanded about this,

and if so, why did he not answer Balak that he has nothing to fear.

And this is what Rashi explains: "that Balaam hated them more than Balak",

that one should explain his intention that this was a hatred of a different type³¹

: Balak's hatred of the children of Israel was a result of his fear that the children of Israel would fight with him and conquer his land,

but not so Balaam's hatred of the children of Israel was an intrinsic hatred,

without reason.

And for this reason it is not difficult why Balaam did not reveal to Balak that he has nothing to fear,

because Balaam sought an opportunity to harm Israel,

and in our case — to fulfill Balak's request to curse them etc.

4.

And according to this introduction, it is understood with simplicity the reason for the changes in Balaam's words:

The main emphasis of Balak was regarding the deeds of the children of Israel that cast fear upon him,

but Balaam did not care what the children of Israel did,

and only expressed his own hatred for the people of Israel.

And therefore Balak said "and he dwells opposite me",

that this is his main fear,

and as Rashi explains

(as above)

that is that "they are close to cutting me off",

but Balaam omitted all this matter,

because he knew that it is not in the intention of Israel to wage war with Moab, for thus they were commanded by the Holy One, blessed be He,

and if so, there is no place to say to the Holy One, blessed be He, the claim of Balak "and he dwells opposite me".

And this is also the difference between the words of Balak "behold a people came out of Egypt, behold it covers the eye of the land",

and the words of Balaam "behold the people coming out of Egypt and it covers etc.":

The main intention of Balak was to emphasize the deeds of Israel,

and therefore he divided his words into two — "Behold, a people came out of Egypt..

Behold, it covers the eye of the land" — which are two different matters: "A people came out of Egypt" comes to clarify with which people he is speaking,

and "Behold, it covers etc." describes their evil deeds that caused him to fear them

(And this is that he said everything in the past tense — "came out..

covered" — which are deeds that already occurred)

;

But not so the language of Balaam — "The people that goes out etc. and it covers etc." — comes to describe its essence of&lt;pg&gt;89&lt;/pg&gt;

the people,

that the characteristic of "the people that goes out etc." is — to cover the eye of the land

(that they go and harm etc.).

And therefore it did not say "Behold, it covered etc."

(which implies that this is an additional matter)

but "and it covered etc.",

that this is a continuation of what precedes it.

[And one could say,

that for this reason it used "goes out",

the present tense,

because this emphasizes more that this is the characteristic of the people,

so that the entire intention of their going out from Egypt was

(what they are doing now,

in the present)

to cover the eye of the land].

5.

And behold it is written³²

"And the L-rd your G-d was not willing to listen to Balaam, and the L-rd your G-d turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the L-rd your G-d loves you."

That is to say,

not only that instead of the curse the Holy One, blessed be He, compelled Balaam to bless Israel,

but moreover,

that the curse was turned into a blessing,

therefore his blessings were "akin to those curses that he sought to utter etc.'"

(as brought in Rashi³³).

And according to the above it can be said,

that just as Balaam's hatred was a hatred without reason and intellect,

so too Balaam's blessings came to express the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He's love for the children of Israel,

which is a love above reason and intellect,

"I have loved you, says the L-rd"³⁴,

which is the love of the Holy One, blessed be He, for Israel for they are sons to the Omnipresent.

And this is also why specifically in the portion of Balaam he prophesied about the final Messiah who will in the future redeem Israel with the true and complete redemption,

as explained in the Rambam³⁵,

for the matter of the redemption is above reason and intellect,

as the statement³⁶

"The Messiah does not come except in a distraction of the mind",

according to the explanation of the Alter Rebbe³⁷

that it is "above the category of intellect",

and this corresponds to the matter of "And the L-rd your G-d turned for you etc.",

that in place of the hatred of Balaam towards Israel without reason and intellect,

there were revealed through him prophecies of the redemption,

which are "above the category of intellect".

(From the talks of Shabbat Parshat Balak 5734,

5740)