Balak Torah is a very likeable. Limit comic.
You know, the history of the type ( Balaam ) which has the power to curse recognized throughout the galaxy, which is begging the great king Balak to curse Israel go, which it tries repeatedly and instead of cursing, produces the most beautiful words that have been said about the Jewish people, just before the speech Nicolas Sarkozy in the Knesset (it's a joke, even if the speech was indeed a very beautiful place). Such beautiful words (those of Balaam) that the sages of our tradition have even included some in the daily office.
"My Tovou Ohalekha Yaakov, Israel Mishkenotekha"
"beautiful are your tents Yaakov, your dwelling place O Israel!" .
Well me it makes me laugh more, especially when you imagine the head of the Sponsor who cheated three times on the nature of the benefit. More
bonus episode of the ass who refuses to move forward and starts speaking, it's almost the Louis de Funès.
But there is a passage that has always intrigued me is the beginning. Balak sends messengers to his first convince Balaam to come and curse Israel.
He told them, stay that night I checked what God wants. God asks him what's going on ... and good God, he denies that this prophet of evil curse his people go. Until then, all very normal. Except that
Balak decides to return to the charge and return others. Balaam answered them the same (or almost), check with God and this time, God agrees to let him go curse his people.
I always found it odd. If he knew able to control what Balak said, then he let go the first time! And if the curse is in itself bad, then why allow it? And we do not really see what has changed between the first and the second time so that we are witnessing a radical change.
I found an answer very interesting and quite consistent with the theme of the Torah in an explanation of Rav Frand , a contemporary American Rabbi, Maggid shiur (Professor) Ner Israel Yeshiva in Baltimore, which I appreciate the explanations. Rav Frand
analyzes differences there are two passages between envoys of Balak. The second time, Balak sends messengers "Rabim veNikhbadim meel" , "More and more respected than the first" .
Well OK, but we do not really see it change except that it has sent ministers to the position of secretary of state.
Balak's message changes a little. This time he wants to " with honors" Ki Khaved akhavedekha Meod ".
Ah, Balak takes him through feelings! I will bring you to the Elysee Palace, with all the television cameras, etc., etc. ... Is it at the time, it walking too?
Let's see the response to see if Balaam pocket: "
" Even if Balak gave me money and gold all over his palace, I could not contravene the order of the Lord my God, no way. And now, please wait here for you, too, that night, I know that the Lord has yet to tell me. "
Well apparently he is adamant that Balaam. But why God let him go? Reply God "Im Bau Lekha Likro Anachim, Kum Lekh ITAM"
"If these people have come to summon you, get up and go with them."
But also the first time they came to summon! What has changed?! Let
Rashi. Rashi explains that one must understand "If these people came to pay you " .
Well, why not . And then, what difference does it make whether paid?
It changes everything, says Rabbi Frand! And the answer of Balaam, it must be read with the air of Daniel Prevost La Vérité si je mens: "and in fact you do not forget the little basket of the bride!" You know, little account Hong Kong "
The " Even if I gave money and gold all over his palace, " if we imagine the scene, one sees the looks a bit greedy of Balaam now pass them a message not so subliminal: "Guys, if you want us to do business, we'll have to checkout."
So why is Does it change everything? Because between the first and second time, Balaam has changed its approach.
He went from a completely disinterested (I curse Israel because I feel deep within myself that's what I should do, although I will derive no personal benefit) to a much more interested (I curse Israel if I have access to the respect and wealth).
Jewish tradition knows this distinction: it is possible to respect the will of God lichma (selflessly) as do lo lichma (because I'm afraid of divine retribution or because I think it will bring me the future world, or more subtly, because I think that respecting Shabbat brings personal balance).
The Torah, especially Maimonides , does not to have an approach lo lichma , interested. Because it is often simpler, more human. But it is clear that the goal is the respect of mitzvot completely disinterested. This is the ultimate sophistication spiritual approach that has more value but is also the most dangerous.
God knows. Let a man, provided many powers in a selfless enterprise is a major risk to take. Because there are good chances that this venture is successful. Rav Frand
says that Rav Schwab used to give an example of this fundamental difference, the long saga of communism. In the early twentieth century, masses of young Jews fleeing the yeshivot to go and embrace the noble cause of communism. Their goal was to change the world. To make it better. They were disinterested. It was a force Lichma. That's basically why it was so powerful. When a young Jewish
paraded with the Bolsheviks, some parents and rabbis were crying. Others acknowledged that they could not deny is that these young people were drawn by an ideal greater than themselves. They chose their destiny without taking into account their personal interest. This disinterestedness, he proves that All is not lost. It's just that evil energy is channeled. But it's much more worthy of respect for Jewish tradition that some contemporary situations that tend to wallow in material comforts.
On another note, Nazism was also a selfless experience. Proof? While Nazi Germany was losing the war, she was exposed on two fronts, and she had to allocate resources to the war effort, she continued to expend energy to drive crazy and deport Jews in extermination camps. Relief can be extremely dangerous, but it is also fascinating and revealing a kind of divine power (one could develop, but this is not the point here).
short, when is that communism has lost? When the approach has changed. When the idealists of the first hour turned into a greedy nomenklatura privileges and material comfort.
Similarly, Balaam "breaks the charm" when it comes to money. His intentions are not as pure business risk failure. God can then let him go.
Reading the passage from start to finish with this explanation in mind, the text suddenly becomes clear.
But it forces us to ask us a question we reached dizzying in our most intimate daily: is it still possible in the XXI century, the century of the society of spectacle and consumption, opting for an approach that selfless? Yes when it comes to blow up planes on the towers. But more positively?
0 comments:
Post a Comment